Abstract
The growing complexity of technical and electronic products has resulted in the creation of additional pictographs to allow for a visual interaction between the consumer and the product. The emergence of large amounts of different pictographs with the same intended meaning may have resulted in the increase of potentially confusing situations, leading to doubts as to the effectiveness of pictographs on electrical equipment. It thus becomes important to know precisely how recognisable pictographs are in order to gauge their effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the recognisability of pictographs depicted on electrical consumer products in a Malaysian context. Eighteen selected pictographs representing six meanings (referent) were tested on 413 Malaysian respondents selected using purposive sampling. Each referent contained three pictograph variants that had the same meaning. The data obtained from the recognisability test resulted in the researcher suggesting six pictographs to be chosen as a single pictograph, each to represent six different referents. The usage of a single pictograph is expected to increase the probability for it to be seen, used, and studied frequently, which may then help with the avoidance of confusion amongst consumers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Crilly, N. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 24(6), 547–577.
Abidin, S. Z., Sigurjónsson, J. B., Liem, A., & Keitsch, M. M. (2008). On the role of formgiving in design. In: 10th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education-New Perspective in Design Education, DS46-1-365-370.
Anwar, R., Hassan, O. H., & Abidin, S. Z. (2015). A pattern in formgiving design: Giving priority to a principle solution in industrial design situation. In M. Gen, K. J. Kim, X. Huang, & Y. Hiroshi (Eds.), Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Applications 2015. Berlin: Springer.
Warell, A. (2006). Identity recognition in product design: An approach for design management. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Product Development Management Conference. Politecnico di Milano: Milan, Italy, June 11–13.
Simon, H. A. (1992). Alternative representations for cognition: Search and reasoning. In H. L. Pick Jr, P. van den Broek, & D. C. Knill (Eds.), Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 121–142). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Chen, L. H., & Lee, C. F. (2008). Perceptual information for user-product interaction: Using vacuum cleaner as example. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 45–53.
Desmet, P. M. A., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 57–66.
Maredith, D. (2012). Graphic design theory. London: Thames & Hudson.
Thomson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431–442.
Visser, I. M. (2008). Analyzing user perceived failure severity in consumer electronics products: Incorporating the user perspective into the development process. Doctoral dissertation, Endhoven University of Technology.
Han, S. H. (2001). Usability of consumer electronics products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(3), 143–151.
Collins, B. L. (1982, May). The evaluation of effective symbol signs. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards. NBS BSS 141, Publisher.
AHK Nepcon Malaysia. (2012). Market watch 2012: Electrical and electronic industry in Malaysia. Important Malaysia Electrical and Electronic Trade Fairs, June 2012, Penang, Malaysia.
Tijus, C., Barcenilla, J., de Lavalette, B. C., & Meunier, J. G. (2007). The design, understanding and usage of pictograms. In: D. Alamargot, P. Terrier & J. M. Cellier (Eds.), Studies in writing (Vol. 21, pp. 17–32). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Written documents in the workplace.
Foster, J. J. (2001, December). Spotlight: Graphical symbols (pp. 11–13). ISO Bulletin.
Wogalter, M. S., Conzola, V., & Smith-Jackson, T. (2002). Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 3(33), 219–230.
Hancock, H. E., Rogers, W. A., Schroeder, D., & Fisk, A. D. (2004). Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age. Human Factors, 46, 183–195.
Perumal, K. (2007). Effectiveness of selected pictographs among Malaysians. M.Sc., thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
International Standard Organization. (2008). ISO 9186-2:2008—Part 2: Method for testing perceptual quality.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for supporting this research under Research Entity Initiative (REI) grant and Research Management Centre, UiTM for the administrative support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hasbullah, M.S.M., Abidin, S.Z. (2016). Recognisability of Pictographs on Electrical Consumer Products. In: Abidin, S., Legino, R., Noor, H., Vermol, V., Anwar, R., Kamaruzaman, M. (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Colloquium of Art and Design Education Research (i-CADER 2015). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0237-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0237-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0235-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0237-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)