The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the comparative perceptibility of hypertext navigation buttons in three configurations: buttons with both pictorial symbols and text labels, with text labels only, and with pictorial symbols only. An instructional HyperCard stack was created in three versions, each differing only in the type of buttons used. Subjects were given typical situated tasks which required them to interpret navigational functions of various buttons. Findings indicated that buttons with both pictorial symbols and text labels resulted in significantly less user confusion than did buttons with pictorial symbols only. Buttons with text labels only also produced significantly less confusion, compared to those with pictorial symbols only. These findings have practical implications for hypertext designers. Many extant stacks typically use buttons with pictorial symbols only, which may create user confusion during stack navigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McKnightC.DillonA.RichardsonJ. (eds.), Hypertext: A Psychological Perspective, Ellis Horwood, New York, 1993.
BenbasatI.ToddP., An Experimental Investigation of Interface Design Alternatives: Icon vs. Text and Direct Manipulation vs. Menus, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38:1, pp. 369–402, 1993.
4.
LindgaardG.ChessariJ.IhsenE., Icons in Telecommunications: What Makes Pictorial Information Comprehensible to the User?Australian Telecommunication Research, 21:2, pp. 17–29, 1987.
5.
RohrG.KeppelE., Iconic Interfaces: Where to Use and How to Construct?Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management: Proceedings of First Symposium, Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, pp. 269–275, 1984.
6.
GuastelloS.TrautM.KorienekG., Verbal versus Pictorial Representations of Objects in a Human-Computer Interface, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31:1, pp. 99–120, 1989.
7.
BewleyW.RobertsT. L.SchroitD.VerplankW. L., Human Factors Testing in the Design of Xerox's 8010 “Star” Office Workstation, CHI '83 Conference Proceedings, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 72–77, 1983.
8.
GittensD., Icon-Based Human-Computer Interaction, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, pp. 519–543, 1986.
9.
KrullR., If Icon, Why Can't You? in Effective Documentation: What We Have Learned from Research, Doheny-FarinaS. (ed.), MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1988.
10.
EdigoC.PattersonJ., Pictures and Category Labels as Navigational Aids for Catalog Browsing, Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '88 Conference Proceedings, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 127–132, 1988.
11.
BremsD.WhittenW., Learning and Preference for Icon-Based Interface, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 31st Annual Meeting, The Society, Santa Monica, California, pp. 125–129, 1987.
12.
KacmarC.CareyJ., Assessing the Usability of Icons in User Interfaces, Behaviour & Information Technology, 10:6, pp. 443–457, 1991.
13.
ChambersS.AlexanderJ.HowardA. T.O'BoyleM.EastmanV.MotoyamaT., Symbol and Word Effectiveness for Conveying Photocopier Functions in Experienced Photocopier Users, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, pp. 1203–1215, 1992.
14.
EasterbyR. S., The Perception of Symbols for Machine Displays, Ergonomics, 13:1, pp. 149–158, 1970.
15.
RogersY., Icons at the Interface: Their Usefulness, Interacting with Computers, 1:1, pp. 105–117, 1989.
16.
GeiselmanR.LandeeB.ChristenF., Perceptual Discriminability as a Basis for Selecting Graphic Symbols, Human Factors, 24:3, pp. 329–337, 1982.
17.
MackieA. M., National Survey of the Knowledge of the New Traffic Signs (Report No. 51), Road Research Laboratory, Harmondsworth, England, 1966.
18.
PejtersenA.GoodsteinL. P., Beyond the Desktop Metaphor: Information Retrieval with an Icon-Based Interface, Visualization in Human-Computer Interaction: 7th Interdisciplinary Workshop on Informatics and Psychology, Springer-Verlag, Scharding, Austria, pp. 149–182, 1988.
19.
RogersY.OborneD. J., Pictorial Communication of Abstract Verbs in Relation to Human-Computer Interaction, British Journal of Psychology, 78, pp. 99–112, 1987.
20.
StammersR. B.HoffmanJ., Transfer between Icon Sets and Ratings of Icon Concreteness and Appropriateness, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, The Society, Santa Monica, California, pp. 354–358, 1991.
21.
MagyarR., Assessing Icon Appropriateness and Icon Discriminability with a Paired-Comparison Testing Procedure, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, The Society, Santa Monica, California, pp. 1204–1208, 1990.
22.
SalasooA., Towards Usable Icon Sets: A Case Study from Telecommunications Engineering, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, The Society, Santa Monica, California, pp. 203–207, 1990.
23.
EasterbyR. S.GraydonI. R., Evaluation of Public Information Symbols, ISO Tests: 1979/80 Series, Part I: Appropriateness Ranking Tests (AP Report 99), Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston, Birmingham, England, 1981.
24.
EasterbyR. S.GraydonI. R., Evaluation of Public Information Symbols, ISO Tests: 1979/80 Series, Part II: Comprehension/Recognition Tests (AP Report 100), Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston, Birmingham, England, 1981.
25.
BruggerC., Advances in the International Standardization of Public Information Symbols, Information Design Journal, 6:1, pp. 79–88, 1990.
FrickT.CorryM.HansenL.MaynesB., Design-Research for the Indiana University Bloomington World Wide Web Home Page, unpublished report, Indiana University, School of Education, URL address: http://education.indiana.edu/ist/faculty/iuwebrep.html, 1995.
28.
BolingE.BeriswillJ.HuangJ.KaufmanD.XaverR.FrickT.ChuangW., Out-of-Context Testing of Relative Perceptibility of HyperCard Buttons using Pictorial Symbols and Text Labels, unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, 1995.
