InfoVis:Wiki - User contributions [en]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-06-03T11:37:12Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: few errors corrected by RM

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDIS 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for selecting the most comprehensible variants out of big range of graphical symbols.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, whether a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. In a second step the answers are classified by 3 independently working judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a][Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDIS 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T20:55:49Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDIS 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a][Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDIS 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T20:55:02Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDIS 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a][Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDIS 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (to appear):
Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted):
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDSI 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T09:08:52Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: ISO/FDSI 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols moved to ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols: typo

#REDIRECT [[ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T09:08:52Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: ISO/FDSI 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols moved to ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols: typo

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDIS 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007][Siebenhandl and Risku]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDIS 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T09:08:26Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDIS 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007][Siebenhandl and Risku]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDIS 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:56:21Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007][Siebenhandl and Risku]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDSI 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter:
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:53:49Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007][Siebenhandl and Risku]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO/FDSI 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted):
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:49:47Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007][Siebenhandl and Risku]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted):
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:47:04Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a][Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]]; [[Risku, Hanna]]; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted):
Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European
Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and
SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and
Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

[Siebenhandl and Risku] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:44:12Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [ISO 9186] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a][Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[ISO 9186] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007a] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[Siebenhandl and Risku, 2007b] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:13:14Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [1] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

===Comprehensibility judgement test===

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

===Comprehension test===

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [2] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [3]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [3] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

===Conclusions===

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[2][3]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[1] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[2] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[3] [[Siebenhandl, Karin]] and [[Risku, Hanna]]: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:08:47Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

'''Referent''' - idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

'''Variant''' - alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [1] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

==Comprehensibility judgement test==

'''The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.'''

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

==Comprehension test==

'''The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.'''

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [2] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [3]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [3] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

==Conclusions==

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[2][3]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[1] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[2] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[3] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T08:05:48Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

[[Referent]] idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

[[Variant]] alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [1] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

==Comprehensibility judgement test==

[[The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.]]

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

==Comprehension test==

[[The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.]]

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [2] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [3]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [3] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

==Conclusions==

{{quotation|Only after succusfully passing the Comprehension Tests, the pictograms may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network.|[2][3]}}

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed by professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[1] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[2] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[3] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T07:58:51Z

UE-InfoVis08-01:

==Terminology==

[[Referent]] idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

[[Variant]] alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [1] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

==Comprehensibility judgement test==

[[The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.]]

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

==Comprehension test==

[[The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.]]

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [2] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [3]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [3] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

==Conclusions==

Only after succusfully passing the comprehension tests the symbols/pictpgrams may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network. [2][3]

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed my professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[1] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[2] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[3] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

[[Category:Techniques]]

ISO/FDIS 9186 Procedures for the development and testing of graphical symbols

2008-05-07T07:57:25Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: New page: ==Terminology== Referent idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent Variant alternative design for a given referent ==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard== The intern...

==Terminology==

[[Referent]] idea or object that the graphical symbol is intended to represent

[[Variant]] alternative design for a given referent

==ISO/FDSI 9186 Standard==

The international standard ISO 9186:2001 [1] defines procedures for testing the comprehensibility of graphical symbols. The procedures describe two testing methods, the comprehensibility judgement test and the comprehension test. Each test is intended to determine the most comprehensible variants of a graphical symbol. The standard defines rules for the selection of respondents in a representative way, as well as rules for selecting the most comprehensible graphical symbol variant for each referent.

==Comprehensibility judgement test==

[[The method for testing which variant of a graphical symbol is most comprehensible.]]

Different graphical symbol variants for each referent are presented together with their intended meaning in a standardized way. The respondents' task is to judge the comprehensibility of each variant, giving the percentage of people in their country, who they would expect to interpret the symbol correctly. The standard defines different thresholds for the mean and median values of the judgements given by the respondents. According to these boundaries, one can decide, weather a variant can be accepted or at least subjected to the comprehension test. If no variants exceed any of the thresholds, new variants should be collected.

==Comprehension test==

[[The method for evaluating how well the graphical symbol communicates its intended message.]]

Variants of graphical symbols are presented to the respondents in random order. The respondents have to write down what they think a symbol means. The answers are classified by judges into several categories, ranging from "Correct understanding of the symbol is certain" to "No response is given". The standard defines how to calculate a score for each variant. Similar to the comprehensibility judgement test, there are threshold values given, to determine which variants may be accepted as a standardized graphical symbol.

==Example Project: Evaluation of Pictograms/Symbols for the trans-european road network==

Due to the complexity of road information in the Trans-European road network, there is a strong need to present information to the driver in a standardized and comprehensible way. Graphical symbols intended to be displayed on variable message signs have been evaluated applying the ISO 9186 standard.

K.Siebenhandl and H.Risku describe that in the comprehensibility judgement test [2] a total of 243 variants were tested during the comprehensibility judgement test for 33 referents. 825 voluntary drivers from Austria, Hungary, Spain, and the Czech Republic participated in the test as respondents. 28 variants reached the threshold for immediate acceptance, 56 were proposed for a redesign. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase - comprehension test.

The comprehension test was carried out in Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic [3]. A total of 84 variants for the 33 referents were tested on 604 respondents. The test resulted in the recommendation of pictorial symbols for 20 of the referents. The test indicated that more symbolic pictograms (like "City Center" or "Obstacles on the Road") are less likely to be comprehended, than sign containing elemental objects like ("Ferry Boat", or "Deer on Road"). In the report [3] it is recommended, that the symbols with a low ISO score should be advertised to be learned, before displaying them. The results provided the pre-selection for next testing phase comprehension test in impaired visibility conditions.

==Conclusions==

Only after succusfully passing the comprehension tests the symbols/pictpgrams may be regarded as understandable and worth of employment on the Trans-European Road Network. [2][3]

The example project shows that the comprehensibility of the graphical symbols need to be evaluated in order to know how comprehensive those are, even if designed my professionals. Small changes in design may cause clear differences in the understanding which the designers might not have anticipated and there are also cultural differences. Also the feedback from evaluation can provide the designers valuable input to re-design the graphical symbols, so at its best the test methods are used in close co-operation with designers to allow iterative development of graphical symbols – and improved comprehensibility.

==References==

[1] ISO 9186:2001: International Organization for Standardization, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=23669

[2] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: "Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European road network"

[3] Siebenhandl, Karin and Risku, Hanna: " Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information displayed on variable message signs"

Siebenhandl, Karin

2008-05-01T11:58:34Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5.2008 Added Picture

[[Category:Persons]]

[[Image:siebenhandl_karin__119x178.jpg|119x178px|right|Karin Siebenhandl]]

Ph.d in Landscape Architecture and Planning (2004), studied at University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences in Vienna

== Current ==

2002 - at [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/index.php Danube University Krems]

* Leader of [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/department/wissenkommunikation/forschung/index.php KnowComm Research Team](in the department of Knowledge and Communication Management)
* Project manager in research and consulting projects
* Course Director of postgraduate Course “Traffic telematics”

== In Past (e.g) ==

* 1997- 2002 Technical Assistant at Austrian Federal Railways Company, landscape planning and environmental safety
* 1995-1997 Contract for work and services at several engineering consultants (traffic management and – planning)

== Research Interests ==

* Perspectives on sustainable technology design
* Information design
* Usability and applications of traffic telematics
* Gender and IT

== Projects ==

* MUTIK: Multiplikatorinnen in der IT Welt, 2002-2004 (Country of Lower Austria), EQUAL
* [http://www.sitcom-project.eu SITCOM: Simulation IT Carriers for Women, 2004-2006, Socrates (Minerva) project]
* Gender Coordination for [http://www.prolixproject.org PROLIX], 2005-2009, 6th Framework, EU
* Coordinator of [http://www.advance-project.eu ADVANCE], Science and Society, 2006-2008, 6th Framework, EU
* Contribution to Work package 2 of [http://www.insafety-eu.org Insafety], 2006-2008, 6th Framework, EU

== Selected Publications ==

Karin Siebenhandl has numerous international publications, of which here mentioned only few selected ones. For more complete list, see [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page (in German)]

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter: Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project [http://www.insafety-eu.org IN-SAFETY]: INfrastructure and SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter: Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

* Karin Siebenhandl (2005): Usability Report, [http://www.sitcom-project.eu/ SITCOM]: Simulating IT-Careers for Women, 114444-CP-1-2004-1-AT-Minerva-MPP.

* Sabine Zauchner, Karin Siebenhandl (2006): A Game for Girls - The Development of an Interactive Career Platform in: D. Grabe & L. Zimmermann (Eds.), Multimedia Applications in Education, Conference Proceedings, MAPEC, Graz.

== External Links ==

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page. (In German)]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php List Of Publications - See Home Page. (In German)]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/department/wissenkommunikation/forschung/index.php Danube University Krems - Department for Knowledge and Communication Management – KnowComm Research Team. (In German)]

[http://www.advance-project.eu ADVANCE project: Supporting Women in scientific careers]

[http://www.insafety-eu.org In-Safety: INfrastructure and SAFETY]

[http://www.prolixproject.org PROLIX: Process-oriented Learning and Information eXachange]

Siebenhandl, Karin

2008-05-01T11:55:29Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5.2008 Created page

[[Category:Persons]]

[[Image:siebenhandl_karin__119x178.jpeg|119x178px|right|Karin Siebenhandl]]

Ph.d in Landscape Architecture and Planning (2004), studied at University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences in Vienna

== Current ==

2002 - at [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/index.php Danube University Krems]

* Leader of [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/department/wissenkommunikation/forschung/index.php KnowComm Research Team](in the department of Knowledge and Communication Management)
* Project manager in research and consulting projects
* Course Director of postgraduate Course “Traffic telematics”

== In Past (e.g) ==

* 1997- 2002 Technical Assistant at Austrian Federal Railways Company, landscape planning and environmental safety
* 1995-1997 Contract for work and services at several engineering consultants (traffic management and – planning)

== Research Interests ==

* Perspectives on sustainable technology design
* Information design
* Usability and applications of traffic telematics
* Gender and IT

== Projects ==

* MUTIK: Multiplikatorinnen in der IT Welt, 2002-2004 (Country of Lower Austria), EQUAL
* [http://www.sitcom-project.eu SITCOM: Simulation IT Carriers for Women, 2004-2006, Socrates (Minerva) project]
* Gender Coordination for [http://www.prolixproject.org PROLIX], 2005-2009, 6th Framework, EU
* Coordinator of [http://www.advance-project.eu ADVANCE], Science and Society, 2006-2008, 6th Framework, EU
* Contribution to Work package 2 of [http://www.insafety-eu.org Insafety], 2006-2008, 6th Framework, EU

== Selected Publications ==

Karin Siebenhandl has numerous international publications, of which here mentioned only few selected ones. For more complete list, see [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page (in German)]

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter: Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project [http://www.insafety-eu.org IN-SAFETY]: INfrastructure and SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter: Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

* Karin Siebenhandl (2005): Usability Report, [http://www.sitcom-project.eu/ SITCOM]: Simulating IT-Careers for Women, 114444-CP-1-2004-1-AT-Minerva-MPP.

* Sabine Zauchner, Karin Siebenhandl (2006): A Game for Girls - The Development of an Interactive Career Platform in: D. Grabe & L. Zimmermann (Eds.), Multimedia Applications in Education, Conference Proceedings, MAPEC, Graz.

== External Links ==

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page. (In German)]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php List Of Publications - See Home Page. (In German)]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/department/wissenkommunikation/forschung/index.php Danube University Krems - Department for Knowledge and Communication Management – KnowComm Research Team. (In German)]

[http://www.advance-project.eu ADVANCE project: Supporting Women in scientific careers]

[http://www.insafety-eu.org In-Safety: INfrastructure and SAFETY]

[http://www.prolixproject.org PROLIX: Process-oriented Learning and Information eXachange]

File:Siebenhandl karin 119x178.jpg

2008-05-01T11:44:12Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page. (In German)]

== Summary ==
[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php Karin Siebenhandl's Home Page. (In German)]
== Copyright status ==
Karin Siebenhandl; permission to use given
== Source ==
http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/00688/index.php

Risku, Hanna

2008-05-01T11:10:14Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5.2008 Corrected another typo

[[Category:Persons]]

[[Image:Hanna_Risku.jpg|260x240px|right|Hanna Risku]]

== Current ==

at [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/index.php Danube University Krems]

* Vice Rector for Academic Affairs
* Head of the Department for Knowledge and Communication Management
* Professor of Cognitive Science

== In Past (e.g) ==

* Lecturer at University of Vienna, Austria
* Lecturer at University of Skövde, Sweden
* Lecturer at University of Tampere, Finland
* Lecturer at University of Granada, Spain

== General Information ==

Hanna Risku has worked at Danube University since 1999. Before, she has been lecturing at several universities.
She was born in Finland, and she has studied Translation Studies at the University of Tampere, Finland, and at
the University of Vienna, Austria, where she received her PhD 1996 and habilitation 2003.

== Affiliations ==

Hanna Risku is a member of several scientific organizations, currently e.g.:
* President of the [http://www.tceurope.org TCeurope], the European umbrella organisation for technical communication
* Head of International Relations at [http://www.tekom.de Tekom], the German professional association for technical communication and information development
* General Secretary of the Austrian Society for Cognitive Science (ASoCS)
* Member of the scientific committee of the [http://www.iwo.at/all.htm Institut für Wissensorganisation (IWO)]

== Research Interests ==

* Cognitive Scientific Aspects of:
**Communication, especially intercultural and technical communication
**Translation as cooperative text design
**Usability, Human Computer Interaction
**Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
**Knowledge Management

== Selected Publications ==

Hanna Risku has numerous international publications, of which here mentioned only few selected ones. For the complete list, see [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/plus/02473/publicationsrisku040519.pdf List of Publications]

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted): Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (to appear): Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Hable, Franz (2006): Usability von Online-Geoinformationssystemen. Tagungsband des 9. Österreichischen Geodätentags, 3.-5.5.2006, Krems, 120-128.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (2005): Facilitating knowledge construction by ICT: Beyond things that make us dumb. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication, Sophia-Antipolis, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (to appear): Visual Aspects of Intercultural Technical Communication: A Cognitive Scientific and Semiotic Perspective. Special Issue on Visual Aspects of Translation of the journal meta, guest-edited by Klaus Kaindl and Riitta Oittinen. 23 S.

* Risku, Hanna (2001): Übersetzen und Technische Kommunikation: Kompetenz im Bereich Internationales Informationsdesign. Universitas 1/2001, 11–16.

* Risku, Hanna; Ström, Mette & Anderson, Bo Peter (1999): Intercultural Cognitive Ergonomics in Technical Communication.

== External Links ==

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/00793/index.php '''Hanna Risku’s Home Page''' (Danube University Krems)]

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/studium/tim/wim/cv_risku051126_1.pdf Hanna Risku’s CV]'''

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/plus/02473/publicationsrisku040519.pdf List of Publications]'''

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/wissenkommunikation/index.php Danube University Krems - Department for Knowledge and Communication Management]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/aktuell/news/archiv/05788/index.php News Archive: "First Professorship for Cognitive Sciences in Austria"]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/rektorat/vizerektoren/index.php Vice Rectors]

Risku, Hanna

2008-05-01T10:46:54Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5.2008 Changed the publication list: to Enflish version

[[Category:Persons]]

[[Image:Hanna_Risku.jpg|260x240px|right|Hanna Risku]]

== Current ==

at [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/index.php Danube University Krems]

* Vice Rector for Academic Affairs
* Head of the Department for Knowledge and Communication Management
* Professor of Cognitive Science

== In Past (e.g) ==

* Lecturer at University of Vienna, Austria
* Lecturer at University of Skövde, Sweden
* Lecturer at University of Tampere, Finland
* Lecturer at University of Granada, Spain

== General Information ==

Hanna Risku has worked at Danube University since 1999. Before, she has been lecturing at several universities.
She was born in Finland, and she has studied Translation Studies at the University of Tampere, Finland, and at
the University of Vienna, Austria, where she received her PhD 1996 and habilitation 2003.

== Affiliations ==

Hanna Risku is a member of several scientific organizations, currently e.g.:
* President of the [http://www.tceurope.org TCeurope], the European umbrella organisation for technical communication
* Head of International Relations at [http://www.tekom.de Tekom], the German professional association for technical communication and information development
* General Secretary of the Austrian Society for Cognitive Science (ASoCS)
* Member of the scientific committee of the [http://www.iwo.at/all.htm Institut für Wissensorganisation (IWO)]

== Research Interests ==

* Cognitive Scientific Aspects of:
**Communication, especially intercultural and technical communication
**Translation as cooperative text design
**Usability, Human Computer Interaction
**Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
**Knowledge Management

== Selected Publications ==

Hanna Risku have numerous internation publications, of which here mentioned only few selected ones. For the complete list, see [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/plus/02472/index.php List of Publications]

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted): Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (to appear): Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Hable, Franz (2006): Usability von Online-Geoinformationssystemen. Tagungsband des 9. Österreichischen Geodätentags, 3.-5.5.2006, Krems, 120-128.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (2005): Facilitating knowledge construction by ICT: Beyond things that make us dumb. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication, Sophia-Antipolis, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (to appear): Visual Aspects of Intercultural Technical Communication: A Cognitive Scientific and Semiotic Perspective. Special Issue on Visual Aspects of Translation of the journal meta, guest-edited by Klaus Kaindl and Riitta Oittinen. 23 S.

* Risku, Hanna (2001): Übersetzen und Technische Kommunikation: Kompetenz im Bereich Internationales Informationsdesign. Universitas 1/2001, 11–16.

* Risku, Hanna; Ström, Mette & Anderson, Bo Peter (1999): Intercultural Cognitive Ergonomics in Technical Communication.

== External Links ==

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/00793/index.php '''Hanna Risku’s Home Page''' (Danube University Krems)]

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/studium/tim/wim/cv_risku051126_1.pdf Hanna Risku’s CV]'''

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/plus/02473/publicationsrisku040519.pdf List of Publications]'''

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/wissenkommunikation/index.php Danube University Krems - Department for Knowledge and Communication Management]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/aktuell/news/archiv/05788/index.php News Archive: "First Professorship for Cognitive Sciences in Austria"]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/rektorat/vizerektoren/index.php Vice Rectors]

File:Hanna Risku.jpg

2008-05-01T10:38:49Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5.2008: Added link to home page and the source

== Summary ==
[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/00793/index.php Hanna Risku]
== Copyright status ==
photo: Hanna Risku; permission to use given
== Source ==
http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/aktuell/news/archiv/05788/index.php

Risku, Hanna

2008-05-01T10:31:14Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: RM 1.5. Created the page

[[Category:Persons]]

[[Image:Hanna_Risku.jpg|260x240px|right|Hanna Risku]]

== Current ==

at [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/index.php Danube University Krems]

* Vice Rector for Academic Affairs
* Head of the Department for Knowledge and Communication Management
* Professor of Cognitive Science

== In Past (e.g) ==

* Lecturer at University of Vienna, Austria
* Lecturer at University of Skövde, Sweden
* Lecturer at University of Tampere, Finland
* Lecturer at University of Granada, Spain

== General Information ==

Hanna Risku has worked at Danube University since 1999. Before, she has been lecturing at several universities.
She was born in Finland, and she has studied Translation Studies at the University of Tampere, Finland, and at
the University of Vienna, Austria, where she received her PhD 1996 and habilitation 2003.

== Affiliations ==

Hanna Risku is a member of several scientific organizations, currently e.g.:
* President of the [http://www.tceurope.org TCeurope], the European umbrella organisation for technical communication
* Head of International Relations at [http://www.tekom.de Tekom], the German professional association for technical communication and information development
* General Secretary of the Austrian Society for Cognitive Science (ASoCS)
* Member of the scientific committee of the [http://www.iwo.at/all.htm Institut für Wissensorganisation (IWO)]

== Research Interests ==

* Cognitive Scientific Aspects of:
**Communication, especially intercultural and technical communication
**Translation as cooperative text design
**Usability, Human Computer Interaction
**Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
**Knowledge Management

== Selected Publications ==

Hanna Risku have numerous internation publications, of which here mentioned only few selected ones. For the complete list, see [http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/plus/02472/index.php List of Publications]

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (submitted): Evaluating the comprehensibility of visualized information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) as part of the EU Project IN-SAFETY: INfrastructure and SAFETY. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Road Safety and Simulation 2007, November 7-9, 2007, Rome, Italy.

* Siebenhandl, Karin; Risku, Hanna; Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter (to appear): Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21, 2007, Lyon, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Hable, Franz (2006): Usability von Online-Geoinformationssystemen. Tagungsband des 9. Österreichischen Geodätentags, 3.-5.5.2006, Krems, 120-128.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (2005): Facilitating knowledge construction by ICT: Beyond things that make us dumb. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication, Sophia-Antipolis, France.

* Risku, Hanna & Pircher, Richard (to appear): Visual Aspects of Intercultural Technical Communication: A Cognitive Scientific and Semiotic Perspective. Special Issue on Visual Aspects of Translation of the journal meta, guest-edited by Klaus Kaindl and Riitta Oittinen. 23 S.

* Risku, Hanna (2001): Übersetzen und Technische Kommunikation: Kompetenz im Bereich Internationales Informationsdesign. Universitas 1/2001, 11–16.

* Risku, Hanna; Ström, Mette & Anderson, Bo Peter (1999): Intercultural Cognitive Ergonomics in Technical Communication.

== External Links ==

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/universitaet/whois/00793/index.php '''Hanna Risku’s Home Page''' (Danube University Krems)]

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/studium/tim/wim/cv_risku051126_1.pdf Hanna Risku’s CV]'''

'''[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/whois/plus/02472/index.php List of Publications]'''

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/wissenkommunikation/index.php Danube University Krems - Department for Knowledge and Communication Management]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/aktuell/news/archiv/05788/index.php News Archive: "First Professorship for Cognitive Sciences in Austria"]

[http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/universitaet/rektorat/vizerektoren/index.php Vice Rectors]

File:Hanna Risku.jpg

2008-05-01T09:58:56Z

UE-InfoVis08-01: Hanna Risku

== Summary ==
Hanna Risku
== Copyright status ==
photo: Hanna Risku; permission to use given
== Source ==