The Relevance of Error Analysis in Graphical Symbols Evaluation

• Autorzy: Piamonte D. P. T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In an increasing number of modern tools and devices, small graphical symbols appear simultaneously in sets as parts of the human-machine interfaces. The presence of each symbol can influence the other’s recognis ability and correct association to its intended referents. Thus, aside from correct associations, it is equally important to perform certain error analysis of the wrong answers, misses, confusions, and even lack of answers. This research aimed to show how such error analyses could be valuable in evaluating graphical symbols especially across potentially different user groups. The study tested 3 sets of icons representing 7 videophone functions. The methods involved parameters such as hits, confusions, missing values, and misses. The association tests showed similar hit rates of most symbols across the majority of the participant groups. However, exploring the error patterns helped detect differences in the graphical symbols’ performances between participant groups, which otherwise seemed to have similar levels of recognition. These are very valuable not only in determining the symbols to be retained, replaced, or re-designed, but also in formulating instructions and other aids in learning to use new products faster and more satisfactorily.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

symbols; videophone icons; empirical testing methods

PL

wideotelefonia; badania empiryczne; symbole graficzne

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 1999
• Tom: Vol. 5, No. 4
• Strony: 513--528
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 11 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Piamonte D. P. T.

• Lulea University of Technology, Sweden

Bibliografia

• [1] American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (1991). Accredited standard on safety colors, signs symbols, labels and tags (Standard No. ANSI Z535.1-5). Washington DC, USA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
• [2] Böcker, M. (1993). A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictograms. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, Darmstadt, Germany (pp. 73-85). Heidelberg, Germany: R.v. Decker’s Verlag, G. Schenck GmbH.
• [3] European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). (1993). Technical report-Human Factors (HF): Results of an evaluation study of pictograms for point-to-point videotelephony. Sophia Antipolis, France: Author.
• [4] International Telecommunications Union (ITU). (1995). Procedures for designing, evaluating and selecting symbols, pictograms and icons (Recommendation F.910). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
• [5] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1989). Procedures for the development and testing of public information symbols (Standard No. ISO 9186:1989). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
• [6] Magyar, R.L. (1990). Assessing icon appropriateness and icon discriminability with a paired comparison testing procedure. In Countdown to the 21st Century. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida (pp. 1204-1208). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors Society.
• [7] Nolan, P.R. (1989). Designing screen icons: Ranking and matching studies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 380-384). Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors.
• [8] Tudor, L.G. (1994). The generation and testing of candidate telecommunications icons. In B. Blumenthal, J. Gornostaev, & C. Unger (Eds.), Proceedings of the East-West International Conference in HCI, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation (pp. 11-62). Moscow, Russian Federation: International Centre for Scientific and Technical Information (ICSTI).
• [9] Vora, P., Helander, M., Swede, H., & Wilson, J. (1991). Developing guidelines for symbol design: A comparison of methodologies. In Proceedings of Interface 1991 (pp. 6-11). Dayton, OH, USA: University of Dayton.
• [10] Webb, J.M., Sorenson, P.F., & Lyons, N.P. (1989). An empirical approach to the evaluation of icons. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21, 87-90.
• [11] Zwaga, H.L.G. (1989). Predicting the public’s comprehension of graphic symbols. In E.D. Megaw (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 1989 (pp. 431-436). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.