Meeting Point

Synonyms / Other Terms Used

Meeting Place, Rendezvous Point

Category

Public Facilities, Transport Facilities, Travel, Tourism

Message / Function

To indicate a designated place for people to meet

	Source	Description
1)	ISO 7001	Side view of two human figures shaking hands, one figure holding a briefcase
	Eco-Mo Foundation	Side view of two human figures shaking hands, one figure holding a briefcase
	EJP	Side view of two human figures shaking hands, one figure holding a briefcase
	PANYNJ	Two human figures shaking hands, one figure holding a suitcase
	ISO 7001	Standing human figure holding a triangle-shaped flag and two human figures walking toward the figure with the flag
	Zurich Airport	Partial views of four human figures surrounded by four arrows pointing towards center
	ISO 7010	Three human figures surrounded by four arrows pointing towards center
2)	Unknown	Two human figures holding bags, surrounded by circle and four arrows pointing towards center
3)	ON Testdesign	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards filled circle inside circle in center
4)	ON Testdesign	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards filled circle in center
	Tern	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards filled circle in center
	UIC 413	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards filled circle in center
	BS 8501:2002	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards filled circle in center
	O'72	Four arrows pointing from each side towards filled circle in center
5)	ON Testdesign	Three arrows pointing towards filled circle in center
	Rahmad	Four arrows pointing from each corner towards location pin in center

Discussion

The range of pictograms shown in the table above gives a good impression of the concepts and image contents available to indicate a designated place for people to meet. There are three dominating concepts in use, all of which also can be found in different standards:

Side views of two human figures shaking hands as proposed in ISO 7001
A group of several human figures placed centrally and surrounded by four arrows pointing towards this group, like the Evacuation Assembly Point in ISO 7010
Three or four arrows pointing towards a filled circle in the center
(e.g. in UIC 413 or the Tern symbol collection)

Most variants following these concepts often just vary in minor details.

Regarding this referent, a number of studies present research from several countries. Some results are not as consistent as one would expect:

Brugger (1992) examined the five variants marked with 1) and 5) for the referent Meeting Point in an Appropriateness Ranking Tests. In this study the ISO pictogram PI TF 042 Meeting Point with two human figures shaking hands reached the best results. The numbering reflects the order of the symbols based on the median values in the ranking test. While the symbol marked 5) was quite consistently rated as least appropriate, rankings for the two pictograms labeled as 1) and 2) varied to a large amount.

In the contrary to these results estimates concerning comprehensibility did not show any significant differences between the symbols studied (Brugger, 1999).

When tested for comprehensibility using a Comprehension Test (Brugger, 1992) without specific context information, none of these five symbols performed well. Using a strict scoring scheme, the abstract versions marked with 4) and 5) performed best. Applying more lenient scoring where responses like 'welcome', 'farewell', 'arrivals hall' etc. were judged as correct, the later ISO pictogram marked 1) reached the highest score. Wrong responses for variants with arrows pointing towards a filled circle in the center included aspects like 'center', 'push button', and 'roundabout/rotary traffic'. The pictogram marked 2) reached 20 % correct responses only. Wrong answers included aspects like 'shopping', 'boutique', and 'dancing'.

While the pictogram from the Chinese standard GB/T 10001.1-2012, Public Information Graphical Symbols, which is identical to ISO 7001 Public Information Symbol PI TF 042, was understood well in a more recent study with 99 % correct responses among Chinese respondents (An & Chan, 2017), earlier data reported from China (ISO/TC 145/SC 1, 2015) indicated insufficient comprehensibility with 13 % correct only. The rather similar pictogram variant labeled as Eco-Mo Foundation seemed to be not well comprehensible with a comprehension score of 29.7 in an earlier Japanese study to propose domestically unified graphical symbols based on scientific methods (Eco-Mo Foundation, 2001), but in a later paper 78 % correct were reported for Japan and 71 % for Korea (ISO/TC 145/SC 1, 2015). Possibly consistent application of this pictogram promoted learning and therefore improved measured comprehensibility in the long term. Wrong answers reported for this pictogram from these three countries were for example: 'talking place', 'get along with each other friendly', 'shake hands', 'porter service', 'mutual help point'.

Recommendations

Due to the inconsistent picture from the tests available, we recommend to conduct further studies on basis of a Matching Tests comparing concepts like the variants of ISO and UIC. This research should cover several countries with differing cultures and include information about the specific variant used in these areas. Only on such a basis a clear decision concerning a specific recommendation can be reached.

Tests of pictograms of referent Meeting Point

An, D. & Chan, E.H.W. (2017): Investigating the Comprehension of Public Symbols for Wayfinding in Transit Hubs in China. In: Rau, PL. (eds) Cross-Cultural Design. CCD 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10281. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57931-3_24

Brugger, Ch. (1992): Reihungstest 1992. Report to the Austrian Standards Institute (ON) FNA 133 dated August 1992, Vienna.

Brugger, Ch. (1992): Verständnistest 1992. Report to the Austrian Standards Institute (ON) dated October 1992, Vienna.

Brugger, Ch. (1999): Public information symbols: a comparison of ISO testing procedures. In: Zwaga, H., Boersema, T. & Hoonhout, H. (Eds.): Visual information for everyday use. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Eco-Mo Foundation (2001): Test data of public information symbols in Japan - Procedure for the testing of public information symbols by the Study Committee. ISO: ISO/TC 145/SC 1 N 329.

ISO/TC 145/SC 1 (2015): N648 Application and test results for N 642-646, dated 2015-02-26. ISO: ISO/TC 145/SC 1 N 648.