Designing Effective Warnings

Abstract

Since the early 1980s there has been an increased interest in research on warnings. This chapter has several objectives. First, we describe the purpose of warnings and where warnings fit with other safety considerations, such as design and guarding. Next, we present a model that incorporates both communication and information-processing concepts, which is characteristic of theoretical orientations that have guided much of the warning research. The research and application issues have generally focused on two themes: design factors and nondesign factors that influence warning effectiveness. Third, we review the progress and status of research and application, with an emphasis on identifying those factors that appear to be most important in determining warning effectiveness. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of some of the challenges and opportunities facing warning designers and researchers in the future.

Are You Going to Answer That? Measuring User Responses to Anti-Robocall Application Indicators

“…First, no one in the pilot study had an issue with the current spam color scheme. Second, group participants stated the colors yellow and orange would also be alerting, and finally, warning research suggests that these colors can be used to express different hazard levels [36]. We chose not to change the background of Focus-AID because the majority of the focus group participants (16) approved the blue color scheme in the examples presented.…”

Understanding situational and mode awareness for safe human-robot collaboration: case studies on assembly applications

“…Interfaces can aid to reduce the occurrence of an accident through effective warning signals or displays [34]. Machine safety standards recommend various measures such as floor markings and warning lamps (e.g.…”

Caution! Warnings as a Useless Countermeasure to Reduce Overconfidence? An Experimental Evaluation in Light of Enhanced and Dynamic Warning Designs

“…Starting in the 1980s, the first warning designs were generally static, consisting only of signs, labels, and manuals (Laughery & Wogalter, ). Advancements in technology enabled the design of dynamic warnings, incorporating displays, detectors, or sensor devices (Laughery & Wogalter, ). Several studies address the superior effectiveness of dynamic and technology‐supported warnings compared to static warning designs (Smith‐Jackson & Wogalter, ; Wogalter & Conzola, ; Wogalter & Mayhorn, ).…”

“…More recently, the differentiation of static from dynamic warning designs has been examined. Starting in the 1980s, the first warning designs were generally static, consisting only of signs, labels, and manuals (Laughery & Wogalter, 2006). Advancements in technology enabled the design of dynamic warnings, incorporating displays, detectors, or sensor devices (Laughery & Wogalter, 2006).…”

“…This might increase the likelihood of warning compliance (Duffy et al, 1995;Frantz & Rhoades, 1993). Finally, dynamic warnings ensure that a warning is displayed when and where it is needed (Laughery & Wogalter, 2006;Wogalter & Mayhorn, 2005), repeatedly if necessary. However, a positive influence of any dynamic element should not be seen as an automatism.…”