Advertisement

Flat-Design Icon Sets: A Case for Universal Meanings?

  • Andrea M. LegleiterEmail author
  • Nicholas Caporusso
Conference paper
  • 28 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1217)

Abstract

Nowadays, the Internet has reached a level of maturity that enables categorizing the main types of websites, the most common actions that the end-user can engage in, and the recurring patterns that characterize interactions. As users have become more accustomed to the shared features of websites and web applications (e.g., sign in, access cart, download file), pictographic icons have been increasingly used to replace text labels. Flat design is among the most recent developments in this abstraction climax. However, removing traits, affordances, and attributes increases the ambiguity of symbols, affects their recognition, and impairs the ability to associate them with their intended meaning. In this paper, we focus on open-source typographic icon sets for the web (e.g., Font Awesome). Specifically, we investigate to what extent flat-design icons have acquired a universal meaning and we analyze human factors and design aspects that play a key role in icon recognition.

Keywords

Flat design Icon ambiguity Typographic icon sets Font Awesome Human factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Page, T.: Skeuomorphism or flat design: future directions in mobile device User Interface (UI) design education. IJMLO 8(2), 130–142 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burmistrov, I., Zlokazova, T., Izmalkova, A., Leonova, A.: Flat design vs traditional design: comparative experimental study. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 106–114. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gatsou, C., Politis, A., Zevgolis, D.: The importance of mobile interface icons on user interaction. IJCSA 9(3), 92–107 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, D., Colling, L.: From symbols to icons: the return of resemblance in the cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese 195(5), 1941–1967 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Islam, M.N., Islam, A.N.: Ontology mapping and semantics of web interface signs. Hum.-Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. 6(1), 20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, H., Hsieh, Y.-C., Wu, F.-G.: A study on the relationships between different presentation modes of graphical icons and users’ attention. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 218–228 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, M., Li, X.: Effects of the aesthetic design of icons on app downloads: evidence from an android market. Electron. Commer. Res. 17(1), 83–102 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goonetilleke, R.S., Shih, H.M., Fritsch, J.: Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 55(5), 741–760 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batra, R., Memon, Z.A.: Effect of icon concreteness, semantic distance and familiarity on recognition level of mobile phone icons among E-literate and non E-literates. IJWA 8(2), 55–64 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexa - Top Sites in United States. https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
  11. 11.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsFort Hays State UniversityHaysUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceNorthern Kentucky UniversityHighland HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations