Advertisement

Search-Efficacy of Modern Icons Varying in Appeal and Visual Complexity

  • Mick SmythwoodEmail author
  • Siné McDougall
  • Mirsad Hadzikadic
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11584)

Abstract

Users’ levels of satisfaction increase when their interactions are swift and they experience the interface as easy to use. Given that most interactions start with searching for the icon for the application you wish to use, characteristics affecting the efficacy of icon search are important. This study mimicked icon search on mobile devices in order to examine which characteristics were most important in determining speed of search and ease of interaction. Given what is known of visual search processing, it was not surprising that visual complexity was the primary determinant of search speed. The visual aesthetic appeal of the icons, often thought to be so important, had no significant effect on search time for icons. The reasons for this are discussed in the commentary on the role of visual complexity and aesthetic appeal when used in mobile application icon design.

Keywords

Icon design Visual search Evaluation Complexity Appeal 

References

  1. Alter, A.L., Oppenheimer, D.M.: Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13(3), 219–235 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailly, G., Oulasvirta, A., Brumby, D.P., Howes, A.: Model of visual search and selection time in linear menus. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3865–3874 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. Becker, D.V., Anderson, U.S., Mortensen, C.R., Neufeld, S.L., Neel, R.: The face in the crowd effect unconfounded: happy faces, not angry faces, are more efficiently detected in single and multiple target visual search tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 140(4), 637 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böcker, M.: A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictograms and icons. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 18(2), 107–115 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carr, W.: Theories of theory and practice. J. Philos. Educ. 20(2), 177–186 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gray, W.D., Boehm-Davis, D.A.: Milliseconds matter: an introduction to micro-strategies and to their use in describing and predicting interactive behavior. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6(4), 322–335 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.B., Bruijn, O.: Measuring icon and icon characteristics: norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity and semantic distance for 239 icons. Behav. Res. Methods Comput. Instrum. 31, 487–519 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McDougall, S.J.P., de Bruijn, O., Curry, M.B.: Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: the role of icon concreteness, complexity and distinctiveness. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6, 291–306 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDougall, S., Reppa, I.: Why do I like it? The relationships between icon characteristics, user performance and aesthetic appeal. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 52(18), 1257–1261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McDougall, S., Reppa, I.: Ease of icon processing can predict icon appeal. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8004, pp. 575–584. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39232-0_62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McDougall, S., Tyrer, V., Folkard, S.: Searching for signs, symbols, and icons: effects of time of day, visual complexity, and grouping. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 12(2), 118–128 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Prada, M., Rodrigues, D., Silva, R.R., Garrido, M.V.: Lisbon Symbol Database (LSD): subjective norms for 600 symbols. Behav. Res. Methods 48(4), 1370–1382 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N.: Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychol. Sci. 9(1), 45–48 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reppa, I., McDougall, S.: When the going gets tough the beautiful get going: aesthetic appeal facilitates task performance. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 22(5), 1243–1254 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reppa, I., Playfoot, D., McDougall, S.: Visual aesthetic appeal speeds processing of complex but not simple icons. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 52(18), 1155–1159 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers, Y.: Icon design for the user interface. Int. Rev. Ergon. 2, 129–154 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. Schröder, S., Ziefle, M.: Icon design on small screens: effects of miniaturization on speed and accuracy in visual search. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 50(5), 656–660 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P.: Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8(4), 364–382 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smythwood, M., Hadzikadic, M.: The effects of icon characteristics on search time. In: Ahram, T., Falcão, C. (eds.) AHFE 2018. AISC, vol. 794, pp. 57–67. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94947-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Treisman, A.: What shall we do with the preattentive processing stage: use it or lose it? J. Vis. 3(9), 572 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Wolfe, J.M.: Guided Search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1(2), 202–238 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolfe, J.M.: Guided Search 4.0: current progress with a model of visual search. In: Gray, W. (ed.) Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems, pp. 99–120. Oxford University Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mick Smythwood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siné McDougall
    • 2
  • Mirsad Hadzikadic
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Bournemouth UniversityPooleUK

Personalised recommendations