Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Semiotic Analysis of Interactions Between End Users and Information Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reframing Humans in Information Systems Development

Part of the book series: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW))

  • 942 Accesses

Abstract

The study of HCI is essentially a multidisciplinary science because “it is concerned with understanding how people make use of devices and systems that incorporate or embed computation, and how such devices and systems can be more useful and usable (Carroll 2003, p. 1).” Researchers of HCI analyze and design user interfaces and new technologies. They also need to understand the tasks and work practices of people and their environments. It is by the collective knowledge of system engineering and human psychology that HCI professionals can offer better computational support to end users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdullah, R. and Hübner, R. (2006). Pictograms, Icons & Signs: A Guide to Information Graphics. London: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., Preece, J. (2004). User-Centered Design. In Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. B. (1991). A semiotic approach to construction and assessment of computer system. In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information System Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. North-Holland: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. B. (1997). A Theory of Computer Semiotics: Semiotic Approaches to Construction and Assessment of Computer Systems. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. L. (2003). Neuroergonomics of mental workload: New insights from the convergence of brain and behavior in ergonomics research. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, P., Noble, J. and Biddle, R. (2003). Icons r icons. Proceedings of the AUIC’03 Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 18, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bias, R. G. and Mayhew, D. J. (Eds.). (2005). Cost-justifying Usability. (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, K. A. and Jacob, R. J. K. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Introduction and overview. CHI 97, 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byne, M. D. (1993). Using icon to find documents: Simplicity is critical. Proceedings of the InterCHI’93 Conference, Amsterdam, pp 446–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calway, B. A. (1995). Semiotic approach for object abstraction. In E. D. Falkenberg, W. Hesse, and A. Olive. (Eds.). Information Systems Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views. Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conferences on Information Systems Concepts. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplin, S. (2001). Icon Design: Graphic Icons in Computer Interface Design. New York: Watson-Guptill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., Ed. (2003). HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2001). Semiotics: The Basics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. (1976). The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1 (1): 9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, J., Goldstein, M. and Anneroth, M. (1999). Icon size as a function of display screen. Proceedings of the CHI’99 Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. May 15–20, 1999 pp 314–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Souza, C. S. (1993). The semiotic engineering of user interface languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 753–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza, C. S. (2005). The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, S. P. and Byrne, M. D. (2004). Unintended effects: Varying icon spacing changes users’ visual search strategy. Proceedings of the CHI’04 Conference, Vienna, Austria, 6(1), 695–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairthorne, R. A. (1954). The theory of communication. Asilb Proceeding 6, 255–267. Reprinted in Fairthorne, R.A. (1961) Towards Information Retrieval. Butterworth: London. pp 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, J., Barr, P. and Noble, J. (2005). The semiotics of user interface redesign. Proceedings of the AUIC’05 Conference, Newcastle, Australia, 40, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, J., Noble, J. and Biddle, R. (2006). A case for iconic icons. Proceedings of the AUIC’05 Conference, Hobart, Australia, 50, 97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N. and Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Method, Instruments, & Computers, 35(2), 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, W. J. (2000). A neurobiological interpretation of semiotics: Meaning, representation, and information. Information Science, 124, 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, W. J. (2002). How and why brains create meaning from sensory information. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 14(2), 515–530.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, R. (1997). Hypermedia data modeling, coding and semiotics. Proceedings of the IEEE 85, 1111–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorn, S. (1983). Informatics (computer and information science): Its ideology, methodology, and sociology. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield. (Eds.). The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary of Messages. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. A. and Szalma, J. L. (2003). The future of neuroergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 238–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, W. J. (1971). User engineering principles for interactive system. Proceeding to Fall Joint Computer Conference, 39, 523–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haramundanis, K. (1996). Why icons cannot stand alone. Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 20(2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemenway, K. (1982). Psychological issues in the use of icons in command menus. Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Gaithersburg, MD, pp 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, L. J., Branco, P. Encarnacao, L. M. and Bonato, P. (2003). Neuroadaptive technologies: Applying neuroergonomics to the design of advanced interfaces. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 220–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, R. & Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. (1994). The Icon Book: Visual Symbols for Computing Systems and Documentation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagacinski, R. J. & Flach, J. M. (2003). Control Theory for Humans: Quantitative Approaches to Modeling Performance. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, J. D. (1993). Dialogic Semiotics: An Essay on Signs and Meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamba, T., Elson, S. A., Harpold, T., Stamper, T. and Sukaviriya, P. (1996). Using small screen space more efficiently. Proceedings of the CHI’96 Conference, Vancouver, Canada, pp 383–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski, W., Siemionow, W. and Gielo-Perczak, K. (2003). Physical neuroergonomics: The human brain in control of physical work activities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J-H. and Lee, K-P. (2005). Cultural difference and mobile phone interface design: Icon recognition according to level of abstraction. Proceedings of the MobileHCI’05 Conference, Salzburg, Austria, pp 307–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, P., Ed. (2008). HCI beyond the GUI: Design for Haptic, Speech, Olfactory, and Other Nontraditional Interfaces. Burlington, VT: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K., Mattelmaki, T. Eds., (2003). Empathic Design: User Experience in Product Design. ITPress, Helsinki, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krug, S. (2000). Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurniawan, S. H. (2000). A rule of thumb of icons’ visual distinctiveness. Proceedings of the CUU’00 Conference, Arlington, VA, pp 159–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K. (2000a). Semiotics in Information Systems Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K. (2000b). Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K., Crum, G. & Dines, K. (1998). Design issues in a semiotic description of user responses to three interfaces. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, K., Alderson, A., Shah, H., Sharp, B. & Dix, A. (1999). Applying semiotic methods to requirements recovery. In N. Jayaratna. (Ed.). Methodologies for Developing and Managing Emerging Technology-based Information Systems. Springer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, J. (2001). Semiotics and indexing: An analysis of the subject indexing process. Journal of Documentation, 57(5), 591–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (2001). Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface Design. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsock, M. (1994). What icons communicate. Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 18(2), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, W. C. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyes, J. (1994). When users do and don’t rely on icon shape. Proceedings of the CHI’94 Conference, Boston, MA, pp 283–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1983). Design principles for human-computer interaction. Proceedings of CHI’83, Boston, Massachusetts, United States December 12–15, 1983 pp 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction (pp 31–61). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyes, J. & Baber, C. (1999). User-Centered Design of Systems. London: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R. (2003). Neuroergonomics: Research and practice. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, P. R. O. and Starren, J. (2006). Presentation discovery: Building a better icon. Proceedings of the CHI’06 Conference, Montreal, Canada, pp 1223–1228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. & Slamecka, V. (1983). Perspectives on informatics as a semiotic discipline. In F. Machlup & U. Mansfield, (Eds.). The study of information: Interdisciplinary of messages. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedell, B. (1996). Toward a declaration of icon independence. Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 20(2), 18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W. and Vu, K-P. L. (2008). Human information processing: An overview for human-computer interaction. In Sears, A. and Jacko, J. A., Ed. (2008). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition. pp 43–62. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, P. (1999). Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 95–130.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sarter, N. and Sarter, M. (2003). Neurergonomics: opportunities and challenges of merging cognitive neuroscience with cognitive ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 142–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setlur, V., Albrecht-Buehler, C., Gooch, A. A., Rossoff, S. and Gooch, B. (2005). Semanticons: Visual metaphors as file icons. Eurographics, 24(3), 647–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M. & Ades, Y. (2000). Understanding the roles of signs and norms in organizations – a semiotic approach to information systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimmel, M. and Huber, R. (1998). After-effects of human-computer interaction indicated by P300 of the event-related brain potential. Ergonomics, 41, 649–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, K. (2004). The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the Way People Live with Technology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vredenburg, K., Isensee, S., and Righi, C. (Eds.). (2002). User-centered design: An integrated approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, M., Vukovic’, V. and Marsden, G. (2002). ‘Visual literacy’ as challenge to the internationalization of interfaces: A study of South Africa student web users. Proceedings of the CHI’02 Conference, Minneapolis, MN, pp 530–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. (2007). Are icons used in existing computer interfaces obstacles to Taiwanese computer users? Proceedings of the ECCE’07 Conference, London, UK, pp 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q-Y., Hsieh, T., Morris, M. R. and Paepcks, A. (2006). Visual information piles for small screen devices. Proceedings of the CHI’06 Conference, Montreal, Canada, pp 345–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H-F., Hung, S-H. and Liao, C-C. (2007). A survey of icon taxonomy used in the interface design. Proceedings of the ECCE’07 Conference, London, UK, pp 203–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzman, S. and Re, M. (2008). Visual design principles for usable interfaces: Everything is designed: Why we should think before doing. In Sears, A. and Jacko, J. A., Ed. (2008). The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, 2nd Edition, pp 329–353. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J. M., Sorenson, P. F. and Lyons, N. P. (1989). An empirical approach to the evaluation of icons. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21(1), 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegers, K. E. (2003). Software Requirements 2: Practical techniques for gathering and managing requirements throughout the product development cycle, 2nd Edition. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

    Sheng-Cheng Huang & Randolph G. Bias

Authors
  1. Sheng-Cheng Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randolph G. Bias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheng-Cheng Huang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Mathematical Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Mattilianniemi 2, Jyväskylä, 40014, Finland

    Hannakaisa Isomäki

  2. , Business Information Mgt. and Logistics, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, 33101, Finland

    Samuli Pekkola

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Huang, SC., Bias, R.G. (2010). A Semiotic Analysis of Interactions Between End Users and Information Systems. In: Isomäki, H., Pekkola, S. (eds) Reframing Humans in Information Systems Development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-347-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-347-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-346-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-347-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation