Clear, reliable and communicative icons, central to navigation in ship–bridges, rely on the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62288 guidelines. This contrasts with uses of technical, industry icon guidance standards and prototypical icon alternatives in Interaction Design. This article explores how guidance on standardised navigation icons for common function controls in IEC 62288 may limit icon development. Following review of related research and analysis of existing professional icon guidelines, conceptual icon design prototypes from Interaction Design are presented to offer prospective and communicatively centred contributions to icon standards. The study is located within qualitative, situated inquiry and Research through Design methodologies in Human–Computer Interaction encompassing conceptual design prototyping and visual design methods. Comparative analysis is made of established icon standard forms and proposed alternatives from the maritime interaction design OpenBridge project. Key findings include identifying that current guidance frameworks for navigational icons contain semantic gaps for interaction designing and operational usage; applicability of a proposed framework enhancing communicativity in icon design and standardisation; and qualitative contribution of a prototype Icon Library to navigation icon designing. Implications for navigation icon design and standardisation processes via conceptual prototype design are discussed as in need of further user study and uptake in the sector.
IEC. Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems – Presentation of navigation-related information on shipborne navigational displays – General requirements, methods of testing and required test results (Version 80/1013/FDIS). Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2021.
3.
RogersY. New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol2004; 38: 87–143.
4.
WibergM. The materiality of interaction: Notes on the materials of interaction design. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2018.
5.
StoltermanE. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. Int J Design2008; 2: 55–65.
MallamSNordbyK. Supporting consistent design and sensemaking across shipbridge equipment through open innovation. In: PoratheT (ed.) Sensemaking in safety critical and complex situations: Human factors and design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2021, pp.155–168.
9.
MorrisonA. Inside multimodal composition. Hampton press. In: MörtbergCBratteteigTWagnerI, et al. (eds) Methods that matter in digital design research. In: Wagner, I., Stuedahl, D. & Bratteteig, T. (eds.), exploring digital design. Cresskill, NJ, USA: Springer, 2010, pp.105–144.
10.
NordbyKLuråsS. Multimodal interaction for marine workplaces used as a strategy to limit the effect of situational impairment in demanding maritime operations. In: Marine Design 2015. London, UK: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 2015.
11.
DenzinNLincolnYGiardinaM, et al.The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 6th ed.Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage, 2024.
12.
GiaccardiEStappersP. Research through design. In: SoegaardMFriis-DamR (eds) The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. The Interaction Design Foundation, 2017, pp.1–94.
13.
GiglioDPalmaVTeiA. Evaluating the operational and economic impact of the introduction of S-100 and e-navigation within shipping companies. Case Stud Transp Policy2025; 19: 101331.
14.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.(WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/. 2023.
15.
AlexanderL. Harmonising chart and navigation information on ECDIS. Int Hydrogr Rev2001; 2: 39–48.
16.
MallamSLundhM. The physical work environment and end-user requirements: investigating marine engineering officers’ operational demands and ship design. Work2016; 54: 989–1000.
17.
HareideOOstnesR. Maritime usability study by analysing eye tracking data. J Navig2017; 70: 927–943.
18.
DanielsenB-ELützhöftMHaavikT, et al.‘Seafarers should be navigating by the stars’: barriers to usability in ship bridge design. Cogn Technol Work2022; 24: 675–691.
19.
FrydenbergSAylwardKNordbyK, et al.Development of an augmented reality concept for icebreaker assistance and convoy operations. J Mar Sci Eng2021; 9: 996.
20.
NordbyKFauskeJGernezE, et al.A user interface design framework for augmented-reality-supported maritime navigation. J Mar Sci Eng2024; 12: 05.
21.
ZalewskiP. A critical analysis of IMO S-mode guidelines. TransNav Int J Marine Navig Safety Sea Transp2019; 13: 841–846.
22.
VuV. Developing user-centred interfaces for marine navigation systems – The S-mode Odyssey. Doctoral dissertation. Høgskulen på. Haugesund, Norway: Vestlandet, 2022.
ShenZZhangLLiR, et al.The effects of color combinations, luminance contrast, and area ratio on icon visual search performance. Displays2021; 67: 101999.
25.
HsiehT. Multiple roles of color information in the perception of icon-type images. Color Res Appl2017; 42: 740–752.
26.
HuangK-CChenC-FChiangS-Y. Icon flickering, flicker rate, and color combinations of an icon’s symbol/background in visual search performance. Percept Mot Skills2008; 106: 117–127.
27.
YangLQiBGuoQ. The effect of icon color combinations in information interfaces on task performance under varying levels of cognitive load. Appl Sci2024; 14: 4212.
28.
MingCWuZGuH, et al.The effects of luminance contrast and color combination on icon cognitive performance. Color Res Appl2022; 47: 498–506.
29.
Ya-FengNJin LJia-qiC, et al. Research on visual representation of icon colour in eye-controlled systems. Adv Eng Inform2022; 52: 101570.
30.
LiuWCaoYProctorR. How do app icon color and border shape influence visual search efficiency and user experience? Evidence from an eye-tracking study. Int J Ind Ergon2021; 84: 103160.
31.
MuDHuangYWangY, et al. Neumorphic or flat? Impact of icon depth on user attention and visual search efficiency. Int J Ind Ergon2022; 89: 103281.
32.
McDougallSCurryMde BruijnO. Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput1999; 31: 487–519.
33.
IsherwoodSMcDougallSCurryM. Icon identification in context: the changing role of icon characteristics with user experience. Hum Factors2007; 49: 465–476.
34.
JinTWangWHeJ, et al. Influence mechanism of icon semantics on visual search performance: evidence from an eye-tracking study. Int J Ind Ergon2023; 93: 103402.
35.
LuoSZhouY. Effects of smartphone icon background shapes and figure/background area ratios on visual search performance and user preferences. Front Comput Sci2015; 9: 751–764.
36.
LinHHsiehY-CWuF-G. A study on the relationships between different presentation modes of graphical icons and users’ attention. Comput Hum Behav2016; 63: 218–228.
37.
MuDHuangYWangY, et al.Neumorphic or flat? Impact of icon depth on user attention and visual search efficiency. Int J Ind Ergon2022; 89: 103281.
38.
EricsonJAlbertW. Evidence for shifting cognitive strategies when icons appear in unexpected locations. Hum Factors2024; 66: 891–903.
39.
GuastelloSTrautMKorienekG. Verbal versus pictorial representations of objects in a human-computer interface. Int J Man Mach Stud1989; 31: 99–120.
40.
McDougallSde BruijnOCurryM. Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: the role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. J Exp Psychol2000; 6: 291–306.
41.
McDougallSIsherwoodS. What’s in a name? The role of graphics, functions, and their interrelationships in icon identification. Behav Res Methods2009; 41: 325–336.
42.
McDougallSTyrerVFolkardS. Searching for signs, symbols, and icons: effects of time of day, visual complexity, and grouping. J Exp Psychol Appl2006; 12: 118–128.
43.
ReberRSchwarzNWinkielmanP. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Pers Soc Psychol Rev2004; 8: 364–382.
44.
McDougallSReppaIKulikJ, et al.What makes icons appealing? The role of processing fluency in predicting icon appeal in different task contexts. Appl Ergon2016; 55: 156–172.
45.
SilvennoinenJJokinenJ. Aesthetic appeal and visual usability in four icon design eras. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 4390–4400. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/2858036.2858462
46.
TufteE. The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT, USA: Graphics Press, 1983.
47.
RogersY. Icons at the interface: their usefulness. Interact Comput1989; 1: 105–117.
48.
WareCBonnerJKnightW, et al.Moving icons as a human interrupt. Int J Hum–Comput Interact1992; 4: 341–348.
49.
HortonW. The icon book: Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
50.
KrippendorffK. The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2005.
51.
ZenderM. Interaction of symbols: Icon design theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2024.
52.
RodgersPYeeJ. The Routledge companion to design research methods, 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2023.
53.
KuuttiKBannonL. The turn to practice in HCI: towards a research agenda. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14), 2014, pp. 3543–3552. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/2556288.2557111
GaverW. What should we expect from research through design?Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2012, pp.937–946. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/2207676.2208538
56.
AdamsALuntPCairnsP. A qualitative approach to HCI research. In: CairnsPCoxA (eds) Research methods for human-computer interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.138–157.
57.
SnyderJBaumerEVoidaS, et al.Making things visible: opportunities and tensions in visual approaches for design research and practice. Hum–Comput Interact2014; 29: 451–486.
58.
SimonsenJSvaboCStrandvadS, et al.Situated design methods. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2014.
59.
SandersEStappersP. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDes2014; 10: 5–14.
60.
StakeR. The case study method in social inquiry. Educ Res1978; 7: –8.
61.
BurawoyM. The extended case method. Sociol Theory1998; 16: 4–33.
62.
NelsonHStoltermanE. Design judgement: decision-making in the ‘real’ world. Des J2003; 6: 23–31.
63.
BeyerHHoltzblattK. Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Diego, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
64.
HarboeGHuangE. Real-world affinity diagramming practices: bridging the paper-digital gap. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), 2015, pp.95–104. Association for Computing Machinery. 10.1145/2702123.2702561
65.
GoodwinC. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J Pragmat2000; 32: 1489–1522.
NordbyKMallamSLützhöftM. Open user interface architecture for digital multivendor ship bridge systems. WMU J Marit Aff2019b; 18: 297–318.
68.
MaguireM. A review of human factors guidelines and techniques for the design of graphical human-computer interfaces. Comput Graph1985; 9: 221–235.
69.
LewisJRosenholtzRFongN, et al.VisualIDs: automatic distinctive icons for desktop interfaces. ACM Trans Graph2004; 23: 416–423.
70.
IsherwoodS. Graphics and semantics: the relationship between what is seen and what is meant in icon design. In: HarrisD (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2009, pp.197–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02728-4_21.
71.
LützhöftMNyceJ. Integration work on the ship’s bridge. J Marit Res2008; 5: 59–74.
72.
LützhöftMGrechMPoratheT. Information environment, fatigue, and culture in the maritime domain. Rev Hum Factors Ergon2011; 7: 280–322.
73.
LöwgrenJStoltermanE. Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2007.
74.
RødsethJLeeK. Supporting operational data exchanges in shipping with the Common Maritime Data Structure. In: Proceedings of International Maritime-Port Technology and Development Conference (MTEC2017). 337–350, Singapore, 2018.
