由於建築物內部空間日趨複雜，既有出口標示在火災時恐難以適時提供避難引導，本研究提出可變禁止式出口標示之概念，探討可變標示應用於路徑搜尋協助的可能性。本研究發現無論有無事前告知可變禁止式出口標示的意義，一般民眾在該標示認知上均呈現正確理解，避難成功率提高約兩成，但在不同空間環境等條件下則需以更多、更廣泛的實驗來驗證之。關於既有標示，透過標示意義告知後其路徑選擇正確率也提高約8％，證實既有標示的持續教育宣導也十分重要。避難行為特徵方面研究發現：1.無論男女均有左轉傾向。2.不熟悉空間中男性在有效路徑選擇上較女性略佳。

ABSTRACT
As building interior space becomes increasingly complex, current exit signs in fire incidents may not be able to provide timely evacuation guidance. This study proposes a concept of changeable prohibitory exit signs, and discusses the feasibility of using the signs to help with the way-finding. This study has concluded that whether the meanings of such changeable prohibitory exit signs have been explained beforehand, the general public's cognition and understanding of the signs are positively presented, and the evacuation success rate has been increased 20%. The increase, however, needs to be further verified with more and extensive experiments in different spatial conditions of environment. Even with the current signs, after explanation of their meanings, the accuracy of way-finding has a 8% improvement, which proves that education on current signs is also very important. On the behavioral characteristics of evacuation, it is found that (1) both males and females tend to make a left turn; (2) in an unfamiliar space, males are slightly better than females in choosing effective routes.

[1] United Nations, Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of 8 November 1968。Ministry of Interior, Exit Indicator and Evacuation Indicator Approval Standard, 2009.
[2] Wogalter, M.S., Conzola V.C., Smith-Jackson. Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33, pp. 219-230, 2002.
[3] Shieh, K.K., Huang, S.M., Factors affecting preference ratings of prohibitive symbols, Applied Ergonomics, 34, pp. 581-587, 2003.
[4] Ouellette MJ., Exit signs in smoke: design parameters for greater visibility. Lighting Research and Technology, 20(4), pp.155–160(1988).
[5] Maguire, M. C., Areview of human factors guidelines and techniques for the design of graphical human–computer interfaces. Computers and Graphics, 9 (3), pp. 221-235, 1985.
[6] Murray, L.A., Magurno, A.B., Glover, B.L., Wogalter, M.S. Prohibitive pictorials: Evaluations of different circle-slash negation symbols. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, pp. 473-482, 1998.
[7] Montello, D. R. Spatial Orientation And The Angularity Of Urban Routes A Field Study. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 47-69.(1991).
[8] Romedi Passini, Wayfinding in architecture,Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. (1939).
[9] Passini, R. Way-finding: backbone of graphic support systems. Visual Information for Everyday Use, London: Taylor & Francis,(1999)
[10] Evans, G. W. Environmental cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 259-287. (1980).
[11] Montello, D.R., Lovelace, K.L., Golledge, R.G., Self, C.M., 1999. Annals of the association of American eographers sex-related differences and similarities in geographic and environmental , Spatial Abilities, 89 (3).(1999)
[12] Garling, T., Book, A., & Lindberg, E. Cognitive Mapping of Large-scale Environments. Environment and Behavior, 16, 3-34. (1984).
[13] O'Neill, M. J. Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), pp.259-284(1991a).
[14] O'Neill, M. J. Effects of signage and floor plan configuration on wayfinding accuracy. Environment and Behavior, 23(5), pp.553-574(1991b).
[15] Best, G. A. Direction-finding in large buildings. In D. Canter, Ed., Architectural Psychology. London: RIBA Publications, pp.72-91(1970).
[16] Beaumont, P., Gray, J., Moore, G. & Robinson, B. Orientation and wayfinding in the Tauranga Departmental Building: A focused post-occupancy evaluation. In D. Duerk & D. Campbell, Eds., Environmental Design Research Association Proceedings, 15. San Luis, CA: Obispo, pp.77-91(1984).
[17] Collins BL., Visibility of exit directional indicators. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 20(1), pp.117–33(1991).
[18] Boyce PB, Mulder MM., Effective directional indicators for exit signs. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 24(2), pp.64–72(1995).
[19]Collins BL, Pierma BC., Evaluation of safety symbol. NBSIR 79-1760. Washington DC, USA: U.S. Department of Commerce.(1979)
[20]Collins BL., The development and evaluation of effective symbol signs. NBS Building Service Series 141. Washington DC, USA: U.S. Department of Commerce.(1982)
[21]Collins BL, Lerner ND., Evaluation of exit symbol visibility. NBSIR 83-2675. Washington DC, USA: National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.(1983)
[22] Lodding, K., Iconic interfacing, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 4(12), pp.13-23(1983).
[23] Cairney, P. T. and Sless, D., Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13(2), pp.91-97(1982).
[24] Wickens, C. D., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, HarperCillins: New York.(1992)
[25] Kacmar, C. J., Carey, J. M., Assessing the usability of icons in user interface. Behavior and Information Technology, 10, pp.443-457(1991).
[26] Nielsen, J., Miniatures versus icons as a visual cache for video text browsing. Behavior and human factors society 33rd annual meeting, pp.380-384(1990).