商品包裝上警告圖像之改良設計

Improved Design for Warning Symbols on Product Packages

商品包裝上的警告圖像是提供消費者注意商品安全訊息的第一線，其識認性傳達的良莠，是影響人們能否正確與安全使用商品的關鍵性課題。國內目前使用之警告圖像效用堪虞，亟待重新改良設計，以維護消費者權益。因此，本研究透過專家小組之改良修正建議，提出新設計之警告圖像，並再次藉由實驗評估確認其效用。本研究參酌國際標準組織（ISO）建議公共資訊符號設計程序，設計出13 款符合目前商品包裝警告圖像需求之完整系統，並全數通過理解測試67%之評估，整體平均值達88.46%。研究結果發現：（1）警告圖像設計類型，採「意象型」的設計開發與認同度上的評價不佳，建議以「具象型」及「結合型」概念開發較為適切；（2）警告圖像外框之選用，除可依據ISO-3864 的安全標示通則及危險程度等級區分外，亦須評估其與圖像結合產生的意義變化，以避免產生誤解導致危險發生；（3）經認同度評估調查發現，受測者對於不同設計類型圖像的評價，有顯著差異存在者，佔全數比例達92.3%（12/13），其中「結合型」對於「具象型」及「意象型」最為顯著；（4）圖像設計類型中，以「結合型」的警告圖像擁有較高的評價（m=5.87），「具象型」概念的警告圖像居次（m=4.14），而「意象型」警告圖像最不受消費者認同（m=3.63）。本研究成果值得推薦相關政府單位推廣及製造商參考之用。

Warning symbols on product packages provide consumers with the first-line information on product safety. The identification and communicability of these symbols becomes a key to the correct and safe use of products. The effectiveness of the warning symbols currently used in Taiwan is questionable. It is necessary to improve warning label design in order to maintain the consumers' rights and benefits. This study proposes some new warning symbols based on the improvements recommended by an expert panel, the effectiveness of which has been verified by experiments. Based on the public information symbol design procedure specified in the ISO, this study designs a complete system containing 13 types of product package warning symbols according to the current warning symbols requirements for product packages. All passed the comprehensive test of more than 67%. The overall average is 88.46%. From the experiment, the following conclusions have been reached. （1） In the classification of warning symbol design, representational design shows the lowest value in identification survey, so we recommend image and composite concepts design for better result. （2） In the selection of outer frames, beside procedures specified in ISO3864 and levels of danger, the messages suggested by the combination of symbol design and selection of outer frames should also be considered to avoid danger caused by misleading. （3） The identification survey shows that participants who responded with significant differences to various symbol designs covered 92.3%, 12/13 of total participants and the differences are more noticeable in the category of composite than in the image and representational concepts. （4） The 'composite' warning symbols have the highest value （m=5.87）; the 'representational' warning labels the second （m=4.14）; the 'imagery' warning symbols the lowest （m=3.63）. These results can be recommended to the relevant government agencies for promotion and to the manufacturers as good reference.