Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 21

“ Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want." ”

-- Popular computer one-liner

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Blair M. Brewster

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Blair M. Brewster (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Kalsher, Michael J., Wogalter, Michael S., Brewster, Blair M. and Spunar, Marilyn E. (1995): Hazard Level Perceptions of Current and Proposed Warning Sign and Label Panels. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 351-355.

“A growing number of studies have investigated factors associated with various measures of warning effectiveness, including noticeability, comprehension, and most importantly, compliance. Some research has begun to examine the components comprising signs and labels (e.g., signal words, color). However, there has been virtually no research on people's perceptions of sign/label configurations that are currently found on warnings. The present study evaluates the warning styles that are specified in ANSI (1991) Z535.2 and Z535.4 standards, as well as a set of proposed styles. The results confirmed several specifications in current standards (e.g., the signal word DANGER was perceived as more hazardous than the other currently-specified signal words), whereas other specifications were not fully confirmed (e.g., the WARNING configuration as indicating higher hazard than the CAUTION configuration). Some newly developed warning styles (e.g., using the signal word DEADLY and a skull icon) show promise for better signaling highly hazardous conditions.”

Edit | Del

Silver, N. Clayton, Wogalter, Michael S., Brewster, Blair M., Glover, Barbara L., Murray, La Tondra A., Tillotson, Cheryl A. and Temple, Tallah L. (1995): Comprehension and Perceived Quality of Warning Pictorials. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 1057-1061.

“The present study assessed the comprehensibility and quality of warning pictorials in the presence and absence of explicit context. Context was provided by a photograph and a verbal description of an environmental scene in which the pictorial might appear. A total of 248 individuals performed a comprehension test on a randomly-assigned pictorial from each of three referent categories (Keep Out, Electrical Shock, and Do Not Dig). Following this task, 185 participants were shown five pictorials (four others plus the one they had seen) associated with each of the three referent categories and then rated and ranked them on their quality to convey the referent message effectively. Results indicated that the context manipulation enhanced comprehension for pictorials two out of three referent categories. Confidence intervals indicated that comprehension levels of all the Electrical Shock symbols would fall within the ranges specified by ISO's 67% and ANSI's 85% comprehension criteria. Three of the Do Not Dig pictorials and none of the Keep Out pictorials fell within the acceptable ISO and ANSI comprehension criteria. Statistically significant average point biserial correlations were obtained between the comprehension and quality scores for each referent category. Implications for warning pictorial test and design are discussed.”

Add publication