Campfire

Synonyms / Other Terms Used

Campfires, Location for Campfires, Bonfire, Fires

Category

Tourism, Recreation, Activities, Management

Message / Function

To indicate locations where campfires may be lit

	Source	Description
	ISO 7001	Flame above logs, tent in top right-hand corner
	JISC	Flame above logs, tree in top right-hand corner
	U.S. National Park Service	Containment with two crossed logs forming X-like shape, flames above
1)	ON Testdesign	Circular containment with two crossed logs forming X-like shape, flames above
a)	ÖNORM A 3011	Oval containment with asymmetrically crossed logs, flames above
b)	ON Testdesign	Oval containment with two crossed logs in outline, flames above
c)	ON Testdesign	Asymmetrically crossed logs, flames above
2)	ON Testdesign	Two crossed logs forming X-like shape plus flames above
	PC	Two crossed logs forming X-like shape plus flames above
	CNIS	Two crossed logs forming X-like shape plus flames above
	CANSS	Two crossed logs forming X-like shape plus flames above
	NPS	Two crossed logs plus flames above
	Ecuador	Two crossed logs with bark details plus flames above
	spreadshirt	Two crossed logs forming X-like shape, flames above
	SIS	Logs plus flames above
	SSRS	Logs plus flames above
	Unknown	Three logs plus flames above
	Northcott	Four logs plus flames above
	NZS 8603	Five logs plus flames above
	Aydinel	Five filled circles forming containment, flames above
	auttapol	Four filled ovals forming containment, flames above

Discussion

There seems to be a visual stereotype concerning the message 'Campfire': Two or more logs plus flames above.

In a Comprehension Test conducted in Austria with the two variants marked with 1) and 2) (Brugger, 1990), about 30 % of the responses indicated the opposite of the intended message like 'fire hazard', 'danger of fire', 'flammable', 'fires not allowed here'. It was assumed that the X-like shape of the logs was seen as negation by some of the respondents.

Estimates concerning comprehensibility did not show any significant differences between the the pictogram variants marked with a) to c) (Brugger, 1999). On the other hand, in a Comprehension Test (Brugger, 1992) of these pictograms, responses highlighted the importance of adding elements implying a containment. Among young respondents the pictograms marked with a) and b) elicited 15 or less percent responses opposite of the intended message. Applying lenient scoring the later ÖNORM A 3011 symbol reached 84 % correct responses in this group, indicating sufficient comprehensibility in this user group. It should be noted that no context information was provided in the two Comprehension Tests mentioned.

Recommendations

Based on the test results known and regarding possible optimization, we recommend a redesign based on a clearly identifyable containment, maybe similar to one shown in the U.S. National Park Service pictogram, but with an asymmetrical arrangement of logs and flames that do not look like a flower.

We further suggest to conduct studies comparing concepts like the NPS, ISO and ÖNORM pictogram variants with designs resulting from our recommendation above.

Tests of pictograms of referent Campfire

Brugger, Ch. (1990): Abschlußbericht über den Verständnistest. Report to the Austrian Standards Institute (ON) dated 10/90, Vienna.

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.