圖像符號辨識率檢驗與錯誤混淆原因分析 ─以桃園捷運及台灣高速鐵路為例

Abstract

本論文針對台灣高鐵及桃園捷運所使用之圖像符號，採取ISO認證之「Comprehension test」手法，分析「非」延用自國際組織的圖像符號是否達到最低可接受標準(67%)，並同時檢驗相同意涵但呈現方式不同的國際圖像符號，依照辨識率的不同以及比較的結果，替國內的圖像符號評等並進行原因分析和後續改善探討。 研究結果呈現國內圖像符號共有14個未達標準(自動櫃員機、兌幣兌鈔機、汽車停車場、商店、會議室、腳踏車租借、台北捷運、自動售票機、旅遊服務櫃台、會面點、親子廁所、臨停接送區、警察、驗票閘門)，其中建議改用ISO或AIGA的圖像符號有6個(自動櫃員機、兌幣兌鈔機、汽車停車場、商店、會議室、腳踏車租借)；另外8個則整理受測者的意見為改進方向。 將國內圖像符號依照「特有性」及「設計性」的分類並做統計意義上的分析後，發現並無顯著差異，然兩者在辨識率的呈現上仍有著14%的差距。 本論文結論為以下三點，一為「圖像符號之熟悉度與辨識率呈現中度正相關」，驗證以往文獻之結果；二為「國內圖像符號平均辨識率仍未達國際標準」，且平均辨識率僅為51%，顯示改進空間仍存在且必要；三為「國外標準的跟隨與國內設計的創新仍可並行」，因地制宜或文化差異的圖像符號在某些情境中為更適切的存在，但仍應符合最低可接受標準。

The study is focus on graphical symbol of Taiwan Railways and Taoyuan Metro. Use “Comprehension test” of ISO for method and analyze these graphical symbols’ comprehension rate which are not derived from international symbol organization. And analyze international graphical symbol which are same meaning but different graphics. For those graphical symbol don’t reach the 67% comprehension rate, this paper will give a full study and improved advices. The study shows that there are 14 graphical symbols don’t reach the standard (ATM, Money exchange, Car-parking, Shop, Meeting room, Bicycle rent, Taipei metro, Automatic ticket machine, Travel service counter, Meeting point, Restroom for parents with infants, Temporary transfer area, Police, Ticket gate).6 graphical symbols are recommend to use ISO’s or AIGA’s instead, and other 8 graphical symbols will be given full analysis with volunteer’s feedback. This study will classify these graphical symbols into two groups, one is “design property” and the other is “unique property”. After study we figure out that two classes are not significant different, but these two classes still have 14% different at comprehension rate. This study gives three conclusions, first is ”comprehension rate of graphical symbol is moderate positive correlation with familiarity”, which is proofed by other studies. Second is “average comprehension rate of graphical symbol in Taiwan don’t reach standard”, shows that there’s still large room for improvement. The last conclusion is “Unique graphical symbol for some area is still accepted” , but need to be tested to check if the unique graphical symbol meet the standard rate.