Mr. Ouch

Mr. Ouch is a hazard symbol developed by the US’s National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) to represent electrical hazard within pad-mounted transformers. Unlike other high-voltage warning symbols, Mr. Ouch was specifically designed with young children in mind. It is part of NEMA Standard 260-1996, Safety Labels for Pad-Mounted Switchgear and Transformers Sited in Public Areas, which lays out design guidelines for a complete label design that incorporates the Mr. Ouch symbol. Mr. Ouch is similar in name, purpose, and concept to the UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh's "Mr. Yuk" design used to label poisonous substances; however, the two symbols were developed independently.

Appearance Mr. Ouch is anthropomorphized electrical arc. The design shows a snarling, octopus-like creature with jagged, lightning-bolt arms throwing a child backwards.

Background

In early 1981, several member companies of NEMA began studying how to prevent young children from being electrocuted by electrical transformers. This followed incidents where transformer cabinets were vandalized or left unlocked, allowing access to the high-voltage equipment inside and resulting in disfigurement and death. NEMA realized that existing signage did not adequately convey the danger, either because it required literacy (text-only warnings) or because existing symbols were too abstract to register on a child (typically bolts of electricity). Concerned about "failure to warn" lawsuits, NEMA began exploring ways of warning young children about the dangers of exposed high-voltage equipment. Member companies within NEMA's Transformer Section formed a task force—the Task Force on Safety Labels for Pad-Mounted Switchgear and Transformers Sited in Public Areas—to design a safety label that very young children would understand, as well as standards on how that label was to be used.

Design process At the beginning of the project, the task force reached out to transformer manufacturers in an effort to build consensus for standardizing a design. Two goals were decided on: a symbol that would warn young children away from electrical equipment, and a label that would make the hazards within the equipment clear to adults, and encourage them to contact utility companies when unsecured equipment was discovered. NEMA hired the Agnew Moyer Smith company of Pittsburgh, PA to design the label, and the George R. Frerichs & Associates Testing Organization of Chicago to test children's reactions to it. Testing of the first iterations of symbol designs in fall of 1981, initially choosing sixteen different illustrations to test on children. The test groups were located in Chicago, IL and San Antonio, Texas, and consisted of an equal number of English and non-English-speaking children, aged 2.5 to 6 years old, both boys and girls. Of the sixteen symbols, they were placed into groups of four, and children were asked questions while being shown the symbols. In phase 1 testing, the following questions were posed:

The child was asked to explain what the symbol showed or describe it. The child was asked to explain what would they do if they encountered a "big box or cabinet" outdoors with the symbol. The child was asked to identify the "most threatening" symbol, of the four they were shown, and what was the threat/danger. From that group of sixteen illustrations, NEMA selected the four most successful designs for further testing and review:

Pictogram N: A hand shocked by a wire. Pictogram F: A hand being 'bitten' by a lightning bolt, with eyes. Pictogram K: An angry face on a blob with four lightning bolts shooting out of the blob. Pictogram C: A pair of symbols, which showed a child being shocked by an open cabinet, and the same person then laying face down beside the cabinet. In Phase 2 testing, the revised versions of these symbols would respectively become Pictograms Q, R, S, and T. Phase 2 testing, the four symbols recommended from Phase 1 testing, were revised, based on responses given during testing. Among changes from Phase 1 testing were: Pictogram N had a plug added to the end of the wire, Pictogram R removed the cartoon elements and had the lightning bolt stab the palm of the hand, Pictogram S would see a total redesign, that retained the core concept of an angry ball of energy with lightning bolts shooting out, while adding a drawing of a child being electrocuted, Pictogram T eliminated the two symbol design in favor of a single symbol showing a child being shocked by an open cabinet. These revised symbols would be placed through testing in Chicago, in early 1982. The children were similar to the groups of Phase 1 testing, identical in age range and language. Phase 2 testing was similar to, but more detailed, adding additional questions, and using photographs as part of the question asking process. Phase 2 questions were:

The child was asked to explain what the symbol showed or describe it. The child was asked to explain what was happening in the symbol. The child was shown a photograph of a child standing near a pad-mounted utility cabinet, and asked "If you saw that drawing (pictogram) on this box (cabinet), what would you do?" The child was asked to identify the "most threatening" symbol, and what was the threat/danger. The child was asked to identify the "second-most threatening" symbol, of the remaining three pictograms, and what was the threat/danger. Of the four symbols, the one children most strongly associated with danger was Pictogram S, Mr. Ouch. While it was not the most successful at conveying to children the hazard was electrical, it was the most successful at conveying the presence of a hazard and encouraging avoidance. Pictogram Q, with the wire with a plug shocking the hand, was more successful at conveying that the hazard was specifically posed by electricity, but it failed to inspire the same recognition of danger from children, and in some cases children were encouraged by the symbol to engage in a hazardous behavior. For these reasons, Pictogram S, then referred to as "Mr. Lightning", was selected by the NEMA as the symbol for inclusion on their new label system.

Our concern is for the safety of children. Our emphasis must be placed on that Pictogram which most consistently and strongly communicates a threat or danger, regardless of whether the child realizes that the threat is electric or not, and also induces safe behavior.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.