The visual metaphor lies at the heart of modern graphical user interfaces. The benefits ascribed to its use rest largely on the belief that pictorially realistic icons allow users to apply pre-existing world knowledge to the computer domain. Added visual realism, however, has also been associated with increased levels of visual complexity. This, in contrast, has been found to impair user performance. This paper discusses our recent investigations demonstrating that visually realistic icons can be designed without increasing their levels of visual complexity and attempts to provide an experimental basis for design practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArendU.MuthigK-P.WandmacherJ. (1987). Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6, 411–426.
2.
EasterbyR.ZwagaH. (1984). Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
3.
GarciaM.BadreA.N.StaskoJ.T. (1994) Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness.
4.
Interacting with Computers, 6, 191–211.
5.
LoddingK.N. (1983) Iconic interfacing. IEEEComputer Graphics and Applications, 3, 11–20.
6.
MarscharkM. (1985). Imagery and organisation in recall of prose. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 734–745.
7.
McDougallS.J.P.de BruijnO.CurryMB. (in preparation). Changing priorities for icon design: Is making icons visually obvious what really matters?.
8.
MoyesJ.JordanP.W. (1993). Icon design and its effect on guessability, learnability and experienced user performance. In AltyJ.L.DiaperD.GuestS. (Eds.), People and Computers VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
PaivioA.YuilleJ.C.MadiganS.A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76, 1–25.
10.
QuinlanP. (1992). The MRC Psvcholinguistic Database. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
RogersY. (1986). Evaluating the meaningfulness of icon sets to represent command operations. In HarrisonM.D.MonkA.F. (Eds.), People and computers. Designing for usability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
RogersY. (1989). Icon design for the user interface. International Review of Ergonomics, 2, 129–154.
13.
RohrG.KeppelE. (1985). Iconic interfaces: Where to use and how to construct. In HendrickH.W.BrownO. (Eds.), Human factors in organisation design and management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
14.
SmithD.C.IrbyCKimballR.VerplankB. (1982). Designing the STAR user interface. Byte, 7, 242–282.
15.
StammersR.B.GeorgeD.A.CareyM.S. (1989). An evaluation of abstract and concrete icons for a CAD package. In MegawE.D. (Ed), Contemporary Ergonomics 1989, 416–421. London: Taylor & Francis.
16.
StammersR.B.HoffmanJ. (1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, 354–358. Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.
17.
TabossiP. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 14, 153–162.
