Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30127
Study of Icons in Enterprise Application Software Context

Authors: Shiva Subhedar, Abhishek Jain, Shivin Mittal

Abstract:

Icons are not merely decorative elements in enterprise applications but very often used because of their many advantages such as compactness, visual appeal, etc. Despite these potential advantages, icons often cause usability problems when they are designed without consideration for their many potential downsides. The aim of the current study was to examine the effect of articulatory distance – the distance between the physical appearance of an interface element and what it actually means. In other words, will the subject find the association of the function and its appearance on the interface natural or is the icon difficult for them to associate with its function. We have calculated response time and quality of identification by varying icon concreteness, the context of usage and subject experience in the enterprise context. The subjects were asked to associate icons (prepared for study purpose) with given function options in context and out of context mode. Response time and their selection were recorded for analysis.

Keywords: Icons, icon concreteness, icon recognition, HCI.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1126790

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 819

References:


[1] McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., De Bruijn, O.: Exploring the Effects of Icon Characteristics on User Performance: The Role of Icon Concreteness, Complexity, and Distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 6(4), 291–306 (2000).
[2] Cees Van Beers, Fardad Zand: HOW DO enterprise system applications create business value for European firms? New evidence for the mediation effects of product and process innovation: Enterprise Systems Adoption, Innovation and Firm Performance.
[3] Masaaki Kurosu, Kaori Kashimura: Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability; CHI '95 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Pages 292-293.
[4] Tractinsky, N. (2004): A few notes on the study of beauty in HCI. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 351-357.
[5] McDougall, S., Curry, M.B. & de Bruijn, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 487-519.
[6] Suna Park, Yoojin Lee, Seungho Park: The study concerning the concreteness and abstractness of icon design, International Journal of Asia Design Art & Design.
[7] Leslie G Tudor: Growing an icon set: User acceptance of abstract and concrete icon styles, 4th International Conference, EWHCI '94 St. Petersburg, Russia August 2–5, 1994.
[8] Rogers, Y.: Icon Design for the user interface. International Reviews of Ergonomics 3, 129–154 (1989). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 487-519.
[9] Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interacting with Computers, 15, 429-452.
[10] Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S. & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145.
[11] Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention. Behavior Information Technology, 18, 68-82.