The Usefulness of Icons on the Computer Interface: Effect of Graphical Abstraction and Functional Representation on Experienced and Novice Users

Abstract

Icons have become a main component of interface design (Familant & Detweiler, 1993). This study examined functional representation and graphical abstraction components of icons using experienced and novice computer users. Current interface (e.g. word processing) icons were evaluated in a search and select paradigm. Experienced participants were faster and more accurate than novice participants. Functionally representative and graphically concrete icons were recognized faster and more accurately than functionally arbitrary and graphically abstract icons, respectively. Experienced participants were affected more by graphical abstraction than novice participants. Graphically concrete and functionally representative icons were recognized faster than any other type of icon in the study. These data suggest when creating icons, the icons should be made to look as much like the object of reference as possible.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alpert

S. R.

(1991). Self-describing animated icons for human-computer interaction: Research note. Behavior and Information Technology, 10(2), 149–152.

Bisant

D. B.

Groninger

(1993). Cognitive processes in software fault detection: Review and synthesis. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 5(2), 189–206.

Blankenberger

Hahn

(1991). Effects of icon design on human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man and Machine Studies, 35, 363–377.

Blattener

M. M.

Sumikawa

D. A.

Greenberg

R. M.

(1989). Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 11–44.

Eteläpelto

(1993). Metacognition and the expertise of computer program comprehension. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 243–254.

Familant

E. M.

Detweiler

C. M.

(1993). Iconic reference: Evolving perspectives and an organizing framework. International Journal of Man and Machine Studies, 39, 705–728.

Garcia

Badre

A. N.

Stasko

J. T.

(1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 1(2), 191–211.

Johnson

(1987). How faithfully should the electronic office simulate the real one. SIGCHI Bulletin, 19, 21–24.

Kirk

R. E.

(1982). Experimental Design. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

10.

Lodding

K. N.

(1983). Iconic interfacing. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 3, 11–20.

11.

Muter

Mayson

(1986). The role of graphics in item selection from menus. Behavior and Information Technology, 5(1), 89–95.

12.

Proctor

R. W.

Van Zandt

(1994). Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems. Allyn and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.

13.

Smith et al. (1982). Designing the Star user interface. Byte, 7, 242–282.

14.

Stammers

R. B.

Hoffman

(1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, 354–358.

15.

Webb

J. M.

Sorenson

P. F.

Lyons

N. P.

(1989). An empirical approach to the evaluation of icons. SIGCHI Bulletin 21, 87–90.

16.

Salvendy

(1994). Quantitative and qualitative differences between experts and novices in chunking computer software knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 6(1), 105–118.