Limited Walking Capability

Synonyms / Other Terms Used

Walking Impediment, Walking Impairment, Impaired Mobility, Reduced Mobility, Priority for Injured People, Persons with Limited Mobility, Accessible for Crutch Users, Access for Less Mobile People, Male Ambulant, Female Ambulant

Category

Accessibility, General Access, Public Facilities

Message / Function

To indicate routes and facilities for people with limited walking capability

	Source	Description
	ISO 7001	Human figure viewed from the side, leaning on a rollator or wheeled walker
A)	ÖNORM A 3011	Side view of leaning human figure with crutch
	Bolivia	Side view of leaning human figure with crutch
	BS 8501:2002	Side view of walking human figure with cane
B)	Eco-Mo Foundation	Frontal view of human figure with crutch
	Argentina SSTN	Frontal view of human figure with crutch
	Translink	Frontal view of human figure with two crutches
	Translink	Frontal view of female human figure with two crutches
	Translink	Frontal view of disabled human figure with two crutches or on wheel chair
	MDCT	Four human figures representing elderly, person holding baby, person with crutch, and pregnant

Note: Some of the examples shown above were mirrored horizontally to contrast differences.

Discussion

The collection above illustrates the diversity of aids used in conjunction with walking impairment or limited walking capability: While the use of all types of crutches is common after injury or surgery, especially older persons often rely on walking aids like a walking frame, rollator, or wheeled walker. The heterogeneity of walking aids also becomes apparent in the range of concepts representing Limited Walking Capability.

It also has to be mentioned that there is some overlap regarding Limited Walking Capability and the referent Elderly, and it has to be questioned, whether or not these messages should be handled as separate referents. In some pictogram collections these two referents are handled as one referent, as for example in the British Standard BS 8501:2002 (Symbol No 4107: Access for less mobile people). Some experts also recommend using just a single, more abstract symbol, regarding access for all kinds of impairments, as people often do not differentiate well enough between the specific messages intended.

Research on comprehensibility of symbols concerning Limited Walking Capability is rather scarce in our database, but we can present test data for two pictogram variants:

In a Comprehension Test conducted in Austria (Brugger, 1979), 86 % of the answers concerning the variant from the Austrian standard ÖNORM A 3011, marked with A) in the table above, were somehow related to physical resp. walking impairment and possibly could be classified as correct when applying lenient scoring. Answers at that time were quite heterogeneous, like for example Walking Impaired (14 %), Physically Disabled (10 %), Disabled Person (36 %), Invalid (20 %), or Route for Disabled (6 %).

Foster et al. (2010) examined comprehensibility of graphical access symbols intended for use on a signboard. The pictogram Priority Facilities: Injured People, labeled as Eco-Mo Foundation and marked with B) in the table above, was understood sufficiently well in the three countries participating in this study: 86 % of the responses were classified as correct for the Japanese sample, compared to 74 % of the Australian and 73 % of the UK participants (page 114). The pictogram always was presented in combination with a photo showing the complete signboard in a real-life situation as context.

See also Full Accessibility for further test data, that is mostly on specific applications of accessibility symbols or on perception of disability and other related aspects.

Recommendations

Due to the fact that data from research is insufficient, we recommend testing using the Comprehensibility Estimation procedure for eliminating poor variants and identifying the best of the set available, followed by a Comprehension Test. These studies should deliver useful data for recommending the best pictogram. Detailed information about the most frequent responses given in each of the response categories of the Comprehension Test should be provided, as this is essential to correctly judge comprehensibility and improve designs.

Tests of pictograms of referent Limited Walking Capability

Brugger, Ch. (1979): Abschlußbericht über den Erkennungstest. Report to the Austrian Standards Institute (ON) dated 09/79, Vienna.

Foster, J., Koyama, K., & Adams, A. (2010): Paper and on-line testing of graphical access symbols in three countries using the ISO 9186 comprehension test. Information Design Journal. 18. 107-117.