1. Factors affecting the design of computer icons Author: Shih-Miao Huang, Kong-King Shieh, Chai-Fen Chi International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (2002) Report: Yang Kun, Ou

2. Introduction Icons are extensively used, such as product labels, traffic signs,computer icons, because: –Icons can be easily recognized and remembered (Weidenbeck, 1999) –Images have more universal recognition than text, since icon interfaces confront fewer obstacles than language (Lodding, 1983; Wickens, 1992)

3. Introduction Icons are extensively used because: –Icons offer the perception of affordance, which can facilitate human–machine interaction in terms of ecological perception (Gaver, 1991; Lodding, 1983). –Users prefer icons to text for executing tasks even though their performance may be neither better nor worse (Kacmar and Carey, 1991; Nielsen, 1990).

4. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify and investigate the main factors involved in the design of computer graphic user interfaces, commonly known as computer icons

5. Method A questionnaire which included 19 items to be rated on their importance to icon design was developed The questionnaire was developed in the following manner –First, a set of 50 icon design principles, criteria and guidelines was collected from various sources –Two experienced professional graphics designers were recruited to analyze and synthesize these principles, criteria and guidelines

6. Subjects Forty-three computer GUI designers completed the questionnaire 21 were male and 22 were female Their mean age was 27.62 (SD=3.69) Their mean years of icon design experience was3.18 yr (SD=1.84)

7. 19 design element and their brief descriptions

8. Method Procedure –The subjects rated the elements on a 6-point scale (1=not important at all; 6=very important) Data analysis –Principal component analysis (PCA) –Varimax rotation of factors was conducted on the important ratings –Statistical analysis system (SAS)

9. Results Five factors with eigenvalues >1 were retained in the solution Design elements which were related to each factor (with a correlation coefficient above 0.50)

10. Five factor after varimax transformation

11. Description of the factors Fig. 1 shows three computer icons in the shape of houses that mean ‘‘go back to the home page’’.

12. Five factor after varimax transformation

13. Description of the factors Fig. 2 shows two icons with letters. In left icon, an opaque triangle partially obscures some critical features of the letters, and thus reduces the image quality, reliability and friendliness of the message

14. Five factor after varimax transformation

15. Description of the factors Fig. 3 is composed of three triangles. However, the left icon is more recognizable than the right one because the left one is easily recognized as ‘‘mountain’’.

16. Five factor after varimax transformation

17. Description of the factors The right icon in Fig. 3 appears less familiar to people than the left, it is more difficult to recognize

18. Five factor after varimax transformation

19. Description of the factors Fig. 5, the ‘‘star’’ sign could be used to stand for ‘‘start’’.

20. Importance of the factors Results of ANOVA on the mean ratings indicated significant differences [Factor 1-factor5; F(4; 210)=20.06, p<0.01)] Duncan multiple-range test showed no significant difference between Factors Factors 3 and 4 had higher importance ratings than Factors 1, 2 and 5.(Table2)

21. Discussion The major objective of this study was to investigate factors that affect importance ratings for computer icon design features

22. Discussion It may be helpful for icon designers to evaluate their designs in terms of the order of importance of the five factors found in the present study

23. Discussion Results from previous studies have shown that simple icons are better than complicated ones (Dewar, 1999).

24. Conclusions The results of this study showed that qualified computer icons should incorporate the following design criteria: styling, message quality, meaningfulness, locatability, and metaphor Finally, neither experience in icon design, nor gender, was related to importance ratings for icon design elements.