How Different Presentation Modes of Graphical Icons Affect Viewers' First Fixation and Attention

This study aimed to explore how different presentation modes of graphical icons affect the viewer’s attention. The relevant experiment was designed to investigate three main variables: icon composition, polarity, and border. Through permutation and combination, six presentation modes were obtained as follows: line + positive polarity + border (M1), plane + positive polarity + border (M2), line + negative polarity + border (M3), plane + negative polarity + border (M4), line + positive polarity + no border (M5), and plane + positive polarity + no border (M6). Thirty-six participants were required to watch thirty stimuli, or graphical icons, presented concurrently in six abovementioned modes. The number of first fixations was recorded by eye-trackers; meanwhile, subjective evaluation of attention was conducted and analyzed. As indicated by the experimental results, the icons presented in M4 attracted the most attention; in contrast, the icons presented in M5 attracted the least attention. The findings herein can be used as a reference by interface designers while icons are being designed.

[1]  Manlai You,et al.  The enhanced navigator for the touch screen: A comparative study on navigational techniques of web maps , 2011, Displays.

[2]  Risto Näsänen,et al.  Display quality and the speed of visual letter search , 2001 .

[3]  Manlai You,et al.  Direct-touch vs. mouse input for navigation modes of the web map , 2011, Displays.

[4]  Gordon E. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—V. The role of contrast in normal vision , 1987, Vision Research.

[5]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Modeling icon search in ACT-R/PM , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[6]  R. Näsänen,et al.  The effect of icon spacing and size on the speed of icon processing in the human visual system , 2003 .

[7]  Kuo-Chen Huang,et al.  Visual Search Performance on an LCD Monitor: Effects of Color Combination of Figure and Icon Background, Shape of Icon, and Line Width of Icon Border , 2007, Perceptual and motor skills.

[8]  Gordon E Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision , 2001, Vision Research.

[9]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Improving Touchscreen Keyboards: Design Issues and a Comparison with Other Devices , 1991, Interact. Comput..

[10]  Wucius Wong,et al.  Principles of Form and Design , 1993 .

[11]  Dennis B. Beringer,et al.  Underlying Behavioral Parameters of the Operation of Touch-Input Devices: Biases, Models, and Feedback , 1985 .

[12]  William K. Horton,et al.  The Icon Book: Visual Symbols for Computer Systems and Documentation , 1994 .

[13]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  The Effects of the Visual Metaphor in Determining Icon Efficacy , 1998 .

[14]  R S Easterby,et al.  The perception of symbols for machine displays. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[15]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs , 1999 .

[16]  Nicholas Mirzoeff,et al.  The visual culture reader , 2002 .

[17]  Hsin-His Lai,et al.  Factors influencing the usability of icons in the LCD touchscreen , 2008, Displays.

[18]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  High precision touch screen interaction , 2003, CHI '03.

[19]  A. Oliva,et al.  Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks , 2002, Vision Research.

[20]  G. Legge,et al.  Psychophysics of reading—I. Normal vision , 1985, Vision Research.