nemrut dagi — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:52:09 GMT

I find it difficult to quickly digest and understand the value of the work product as shown in the screenshot. Is this something that others feel worthwhile or more valuable as a reference tool to the individual developers?

nemrut dagi — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:32 GMT

Very informative article. I always referred to them as simply ‘flow diagrams.’ You’ve provided a few more academic terms to my User Experience vocabulary :-)

nemrut dagi — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:06 GMT

Interesting analysis, and as another person metioned, a commendable attempt to quantify something so inherently subjective. I especially enjoyed the explanation of how our brain proceses visual information via M/P pathways.

My only concern with such an analyis is that the data derived from such a small sampling (ie, 10 users). In a number of usability studies where ‘gross level’ user behaviour and performance is measured, a user sampling of 8-12 users is sufficient to uncover 80% of the issues. Any more users and you start geting diminishing returns.

With the short study that you conducted, you’re measuring user comprehension and performance at a very detailed level of user manipulation(ie, icon matching within a limited spatial area). Such a study, in my mind, would require a significantly larger sampling of users (eg, 30min-50max) in order to derive any meaningful data. And the users would have to come from a cross section of society vs narrowly defined group.

Another thing I question about such a study, although very insightful, is whether we’re giving somehting more importance than necessary. In this case, your study makes the argument that icons need to take into account a specific formula in order to be more effective communication devices. I’m not sure icons as we know them via desktop and sw applications can ever meet that goal. If anything they are mere supplementary devices which provide some method of visual distinction at a more human level in an ‘inhumane environment’ – the computer. Thsi is evidenced by the windows icons displayed in Fiqure 4.

Many of the icons consumers/users encounter in the computer environment are meant to serve more as visual relief or variety amid a sea fo text—or a more colorful bullet point if you will. Expecting such small visual devices to achieve more would be to get to an even lower frequency level that you describe on par with Chinese characters, which evolved over 5 thousand yrs from pictograms to distlled line patterns.

So in short, maybe we’re asking too much of icons. And if not, maybe they need to evolve to much ‘lower frequency’ visual devices that convey meaning with the minimum of visual noise. All and all though, wonderful analysis and thanks for sharing.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by nemrut dagi