Applying Axiomatic Method to Icon Design for Process Control Displays

. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) have been extensively applied to the user interfaces of almost every computer system. An important feature of GUIs is the icon. While it is not difficult to find relevant information for the design of icons from handbooks, industry standards or guidelines, it is surprising to find many inconsistencies in the information. Hence, it is necessary to find a new and improved method for the design of icons. An axiomatic method was applied to icon design. This method was based on the two axioms of the Axiomatic Design (AD) principles – The Independence Axiom and the Information Axiom. From the viewpoints of semiotics and human information processing, visual distinctiveness and the appropriateness of representation are two key factors in icon design. It was proposed that the discriminability of icons could be analyzed through the Independence Axiom, and the meaningfulness of icons could be evaluated through the Information Axiom. From a previous study, a set of icons used in a Distributed Control System (DCS) product for ASEAN market was reviewed. The review was used as an example to show how the axiomatic method could be applied as a framework for the design of icons in process control displays.

[1]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Icon Design for the User Interface , 1989 .

[2]  M. Helander,et al.  Axiomatc design in ergonomics and an extension of the information axiom , 2002 .

[3]  Sri Hastuti Kurniawan.  A rule of thumb of icons' visual distinctiveness , 2000, CUU '00.

[4]  Nam P. Suh.  Development of the science base for the manufacturing field through the axiomatic approach , 1984 .

[5]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  On an Axiomatic Approach to Manufacturing and Manufacturing Systems , 1978 .

[6]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[7]  Zahari Taha,et al.  In Search of Internationalized Operator Interface Displays in Process Control: A Comparison among Malaysian, Singaporean and Chinese , 2004 .

[8]  Noel Sheehy,et al.  Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[9]  Darrell Mann,et al.  AXIOMATIC DESIGN AND TRIZ: COMPATIBILITIES AND CONTRADICTIONS , 2002 .

[10]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[11]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Safety Signal Words and Color Codes: The Perception of Implied Hazard by Chinese People , .

[12]  Shih-miao Huang,et al.  Factors affecting the design of computer icons , 2002 .

[13]  Samantha Wright.  Validating a predictive model for computer icon development , 1997 .

[14]  Ke-Zhang Chen.  Identifying the Relationship among Design Methods: Key to Successful Applications and Developments of Design Methods , 1999 .

[15]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Development and Validation of Icons Varying in their Abstractness , 1994, Interact. Comput..

[16]  Li Lin,et al.  A structured approach to measuring functional dependency and sequencing of coupled tasks in engineering design , 2003, Comput. Ind. Eng..