Article published in:
Information Visualization
Edited by Marian Dörk and Isabel Meirelles
[Information Design Journal 25:1] 2019
► pp. 87–100

The evolution of the elevator pictogram

Pointing out trends for the future

| Moni­teurs GmbH
| Moni­teurs GmbH

This study draws attention to the challenging perception of two public information pictograms, ‘elevator’ and ‘toilet’. Both indicate the location of a destination. Although the semantic information is completely different, both pictograms partly depict the same: front view of standing human figures. In certain contexts (e.g., at airports or train stations), with people in a hurry and with users from different cultures, this can lead to confusion. In addition, the representation of human figures is increasingly being questioned on the basis of public and political discussions on gender issues. Moreover, attention to accessibility is also being incorporated in these two pictograms. Thus, both pictograms are undergoing an evolutionary process in order to meet current requirements. Do more messages require more complex pictograms? As a starting point, we conducted a comprehension test based on the method recommended by iso 9186-1. The results showed trends, but some questions regarding the two pictograms were not clearly understood by the test group members. Therefore, we conducted another test designed to determine the limits of the graphics depicted in these pictograms. We hope this study will help raise awareness about these issues. Finally, we offer five pointers for consideration when designing the elevator pictogram in the future.

Keywords: wayfinding, perception, pictograms, semantic, iso 9186-1, toilet, elevator
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and point of departure
    • 1.1Pictograms
    • 1.2Perceptual psychological factors
    • 1.3The example of Otl Aicher’s elevator
    • 1.4Related studies and research objectives
    • 1.5Gender-sensitive pictograms
  • 2.Experimental procedures
    • 2.1Evolution of the elevator pictogram
    • 2.2Analysis of 100 international airports
    • 2.3Comprehension test
    • 2.4Perception test under stress
  • 3.Conclusion: How can we solve this problem?
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 16 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.25.1.07sch
References
Adams, A., Boersema, T., & Mijksenaar, M.
(2010) Warning symbology: Difficult concepts may be successfully depicted with two-part signs. Information Design Journal, 18(2), 94–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aicher, O. & Krampen, M.
(1977) Zeichensysteme der visuellen Kommunikation. Stuttgart: Alexander Koch.Google Scholar
AIGA
(2019) Symbol Signs. Retrieved January 27, 2019, from https://​www​.aiga​.org​/symbol​-signs
Akolkar, R. T., & Bhutkar, G. D.
(2015) Usability evaluation of icons related with e-governance website in India. Retrieved April 11, 2019, from https://​www​.researchgate​.net​/publication​/309669228​_Usability​_Evaluation​_of​_Icons​_Related​_with​_e​-Governance​_Website​_in​_India
ADV, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Verkehrsflughäfen
(1974) Piktogramme zur Orientierung auf Flughäfen: Pictographs for orientation at airports. Stuttgart: ADV.Google Scholar
Black, A.
(2017) Icons as carriers of information. In A. Black, P. Luna, O. Lund, & S. Walker (Eds.), Information design: Research and practice (pp. 315–329). London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake Huer, M.
(2000) Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(3), 180–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersema, T., & Adams, A. S.
(2017) International standards for designing and testing graphical symbols. In A. Black, P. Luna, O. Lund, & S. Walker (Eds.), Information design: Research and practice (pp. 303–314). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cho, H., Ishida, T., Yamashita, N., Inaba, R., Mori, Y., & Koda, T.
(2007) Culturally-situated pictogram retrieval. In T. Ishida, S. R. Fussell, & P. T. J. M. Vossen (Eds.), International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration (pp. 221–235). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clara, S., & Swasty, W.
(2017) Pictogram on signage as an effective communication. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 16(2), 167–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, M. C.
(2017) Information design research methods. In A. Black, P. Luna, O. Lund, & S. Walker (Eds.), Information design: Research and practice (pp. 435–449). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
ERCO
(2019a) otl aicher piktogramme. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://​www​.piktogramm​.de​/de​/suche​.html
(2019b) Otl Aicher. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from https://​www​.piktogramm​.de​/de​/#c7
Foster, J., Koyama, K., & Adams, A.
(2010) Paper and on-line testing of graphical access symbols in three countries using the ISO 9186 comprehension test. Information Design Journal, 18(2), 107–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flughafen München GmbH
(1992) Landschaft, Erscheinungsbild, Architektur. München.Google Scholar
Hassan, E. M. M.
(2017) The semiotics of pictogram in the signage systems. International Design Journal, 5(2), 301–315.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, R. D. & Wallbaum, R.
(1992) Der Flughafen München. Ein Jahrhundertwerk. München: Leo-Verlag.Google Scholar
Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M.
(1998) Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394(6693), 575–577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
ISO
(2007a) ISO 7001, Graphical symbols – Public information symbols. Geneva: International Organization of Standardization.Google Scholar
(2007b) ISO 9186-1, Graphical symbols – Test methods – Part 1: Methods for testing comprehensibility. Geneva: International Organization of Standardization.Google Scholar
Kapitzki, H. W.
(1997) Gestaltung: Methode und Konsequenz. Ein biografischer Bericht. Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges.Google Scholar
Koyama, K.
(2000) Comprehension test according to ISO 9186-1:1989.Google Scholar
(2012) Comprehension test according to ISO 9186-1:2007.Google Scholar
Mies, H.
(2017) Official Signs and Icons 3. New York: Ultimate Symbol.Google Scholar
Modley, R., & Myers, W. R.
(1976) Handbook of pictorial symbols: 3, 250 examples from international sources. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Moser, E.
(2012) otl aicher, gestalter. Ostfildern, Stuttgart: Hatje Cantz Verlag.Google Scholar
Quindós, T., & González-Miranda, E.
(2015) An anatomical question: Pictogram design associated to female gender. EME Experimental Illustration, Art & Design, 3(3), 62–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schönhammer, R.
(2009) Einführung in die Wahrnehmungspsychologie: Sinne, Körper, Bewegung. Vienna: facultas.wuv Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
SenStadtUm, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin Kommunikation
(2012) Berlin: Design for all. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://​www​.stadtentwicklung​.berlin​.de​/bauen​/barrierefreies​_bauen​/download​/handbuch​/BarrierefreiesBauen2012​.pdf
Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J.
(2011) This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S.
(2004) What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(5), 495–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zender, M.
(2006) Advancing icon design for global nonverbal communication: Or what does the word bow mean? Visible Language, 40(2), 177–206.Google Scholar
The evolution of the elevator pictogram