Objective: This research examined the relative importance of icon characteristics in determining the speed and accuracy of icon identification. Background: Studies to date have focused on the role of one or two icon characteristics when users first experience an icon set. This means that little is known about the relative importance of icon characteristics or how the role of icon characteristics might change as users gain experience with icons. Methods: Thirty participants carried out an icon identification task over a long series of trials to simulate learning through experience. Icon characteristics investigated included semantic distance, concreteness, familiarity, and visual complexity. Results: Icon characteristics were major determinants of performance, accounting for up to 69% of the variance observed in performance. However, the importance of icon characteristics changed with experience: Semantic distance is crucial initially while icon-function relationships are learned, but familiarity is important later because it has lasting effects on access to long-term memory representations. Conclusion: These findings suggest that icon concreteness may not be of primary importance when identifying icons and that semantic distance and familiarity may be more important. Application: Designers need to take into account icon characteristics other than concreteness when creating icons, particularly semantic distance and familiarity. The precise importance of the latter characteristics will vary depending on whether icons are rarely encountered or frequently used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arend, U., Muthig, K.-P., & Wandmacher, J. (1987). Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons. Behavior and Information Technology, 6, 411-426.
2.
Bates, E., D'Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., et al. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages . Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 344-380.
3.
Bocker, M. (1993). A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictograms. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunication (pp. 73-84). Heidelberg : R. v. Decker's Verlag, G. Schenck GmbH.
4.
Byrne, M.D. (1993). Using icons to find documents: Simplicity is critical . In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. While (Eds.), Interchi '93 - Bridges between worlds: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 446-465). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
5.
Caplin, S. (2001). Icon design: Graphic icons in computer interface design. London: Cassell.
6.
Carr, T.H. (1986). Perceiving visual language. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman , & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 29-92). New York: Wiley .
7.
Cuetos, F., Ellis, A.W., & Alvarez, B. (1999). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 650-658.
8.
Familant, M.E., & Detweiler, M.C. (1993). Iconic reference: Evolving perspectives and an organizing framework. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 705-728.
9.
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Available from http://www.cogsci. princeton.edu
10.
Garcia, M., Badre, A.N., & Stasko, T. (1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 6, 191-211.
11.
Gilhooly, K.J., & Logie, R.H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
12.
Gittens, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543.
13.
Goonetilleke, R.S.Shih, H.M., On, H.K., & Fritsch, J. (2001). Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 55, 741-760.
14.
Green, A.J.K., & Barnard, P.J. (1990). Iconic interfacing: The role of icon distinctiveness and fixed or variable screen locations. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - Interact '90 (pp. 457-462). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers .
15.
Hancock, H.E., Rogers, W.A., Schroeder, D., & Fisk, A.D. (2004). Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age. Human Factors, 46, 183-195.
16.
Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P. (Eds.). (1932). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book: Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. New York: Wiley .
18.
Jescheniak, J., & Levelt, W. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824-843.
19.
Johnson, C.J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J.M. (1996). Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113-139.
20.
Keller, P., & Stevens, C. (2004). Meaning from environmental sounds: Types of signal-referent relations and their effect on recognizing auditory icons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 3-12.
21.
Lambon-Ralph, M., Graham, K.S., Ellis, A.W., & Hodges, J.R. (1998). Naming in semantic dementia: What matters? Neuropsychologia, 36, 775-784.
22.
Maki, W.S., McKinley, L.N., & Thompson, A.G. (2004). Semantic distance norms computed from an electronic dictionary (WordNet). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 421-431.
23.
Mayhorn, C.B., Wogalter, M.W., & Bell, J.L. (2004). Homeland security safety symbols: Are we ready ? Ergonomics in Design, 14(4), 6-14.
24.
McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., & de Bruijn, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 31, 487-519.
25.
McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., & de Bruijn, O. (2001). The effects of visual information on users' mental models: An evaluation of pathfinder analysis as a measure of icon usability . International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 59-84.
26.
McDougall, S.J.P., de Bruijn, O., & Curry, M.B. (2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 291-306.
27.
Moyes, J., & Jordan, P.W. (1993). Icon design and its effect on guess-ability, learnability and experienced user performance. In J. D. Alty, D. Diaper, & S. Guest (Eds.), People and computers VIII (pp. 49-59). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Society.
28.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J.C., & Madigan, S.A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1-25.
29.
Rogers, Y., & Oborne, D.J. (1987). Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in related to human-computer interaction. British Journal of Psychology , 78, 99-112.
30.
Scott, D. (1993). Visual search in modern human-computer interfaces . Behaviour and Information Technology, 12, 174-189.
31.
Snodgrass, J.G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
32.
Stammers, R.B., & Hoffman, J. (1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 354-358). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
33.
Stotts, D.B. (1998). The usefulness of icons on the computer interface: Effect of graphical abstraction and functional representation on experienced and novice users. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 453-457). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
