Graphics and Semantics: The Relationship between What Is Seen and What Is Meant in Icon Design

  • Sarah Isherwood
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5639)

Abstract

Visual icons can be considered as a means for designers to convey messages to end-users via the interface of a computer system. This paper explores the relationship between the users’ interpretation of icons and the meaning that designers intend icons to convey. Focussing on interface users’ understanding of icons, recent research has shown that it is the closeness of the relationship between icon and function, known as the semantic distance, that is of prime importance in determining the success of icon usability. This contrasts with previous research which has suggested that the concreteness, or pictorialness, of icons is the key to good design. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Icons Semantic distance Concreteness Semiotics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    De Souza, C.S.: The semiotic engineering of user interface languages. International Journal Man-Machine Studies 39, 753–773 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Familant, M.E., Detweiler, M.C.: Iconic reference: Evolving perspectives and an organising framework. International Journal Man-Machine Studies 39, 705–728 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carr, T.H.: Perceiving visual language. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Handbook of perception and human performance: Cognitive processes and performance, pp. 29–92. Wiley, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peirce, C.S.: Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In: Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. (eds.) Elements of logic, vol. 2. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1932)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Souza, C.S.: The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goonetilleke, R.S., Shih, H.M., On, H.K., Fritsch, J.: Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55, 741–760 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barker, P., van Schaik, P.: Icons in the mind. In: Yazdani, M., Barker, P. (eds.) Iconic Communication. Intellect Books, Bristol (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faulkner, C.: The Essence of Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, London (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moyes, J., Jordan, P.W.: Icon design and its effect on guessability, learnability and experienced user performance. In: Alty, J.D., Diaper, D., Guest, S. (eds.) People and computers VIII, pp. 49–59. Cambridge University Society, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arend, U., Muthig, K.-P., Wandmacher, J.: Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons. Behavior and Information Technology 6, 411–426 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogers, Y., Oborne, D.J.: Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in related to human-computer interaction. British Journal of Psychology 78, 99–112 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stammers, R.B., George, D.A., Carey, M.S.: An evaluation of abstract and concrete icons for a CAD package. In: Megaw, E.D. (ed.) Contemporary ergonomics 1989, pp. 416–421. Taylor & Francis, London (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stammers, R.B., Hoffman, J.: Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, pp. 354–358. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stotts, D.B.: 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 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 453–457 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green, A.J.K., Barnard, P.J.: Iconic interfacing: The role of icon distinctiveness and fixed or variable screen locations. In: Diaper, D., Gilmore, D., Cockton, G., Shackel, B. (eds.) Human computer interaction – Interact 1990, pp. 457–462. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Isherwood, S.J., McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.: Icon Identification in Context: The changing role of icon characteristics with user experience. Human Factors 49(3), 465–476 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDougall, S.J.P., de Bruijn, O., Curry, M.B.: 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 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nolan, P.R.: Designing screen icons: Ranking and matching studies. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, pp. 380–384. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stammers, R.B.: Icon interpretation and degree of abstractness – concreteness. In: Adams, A.S., Hall, R.R., McPhee, B.J., Oxenburgh, M.S. (eds.) Ergonomics international, vol. 88, pp. 505–507. Taylor & Francis, London (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stammers, R.B.: Judged appropriateness of icons as a predictor of identification performance. In: Lovesay, E.J. (ed.) Contemporary ergonomics, pp. 371–376. Taylor & Francis, London (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, S.: Stereotypy in pictograms of abstract concepts. Ergonomics 26, 605–611 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., de Bruijn, O.: 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 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greenlee, D.: Peirce’s concept of sign. Mouton & Co. N. V. Publishers, The Hague (1973)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., de Bruijn, O.: 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 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDougall, S.J.P., Isherwood, S.J.: What’s in a name? The role of graphics, functions, and their interrelationships in icon identification. Behaviour Research Methods 41, 325–336Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., Herron, D., Lu, C.C., Pechmann, T., Pléh, C., Wicha, N., Feremeiier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., Tzeng, O.: Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 344–380 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson, C.J., Paivio, A., Clark, J.M.: Cognitive components of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin 120, 113–139 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McKeown, D., Isherwood, S.J.: Mapping Candidate Within-Vehicle Auditory Displays to Their Referents. Human Factors 49, 417–428 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petocz, A., Keller, P., Stevens, S.: Auditory warnings, signal-referent relations and natural indicators: Re-thinking theory and application. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 165–178 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Isherwood
    • 1
  1. 1.School of HealthcareUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations