Improving Icon Design: Through Focus on the Role of Individual Symbols in the Construction of Meaning

ABSTrACTDespite the fact that icons are widely relied upon for communication, designers have few principles to guide icon design. This paper reports a study of the role individual symbols play on the construction of meaning from icons. An experiment compared two sets of four icons, each made of a different set of discrete symbols. It finds that the interaction of the right number of symbols for the referent, and a more apt combination of individual symbols for the referent, can significantly improve the construction of an icon that communicates what was intended. The rules of thumb proposed here are applicable to construction of any visual communication that uses symbols.cons today are ubiquitous and utilitarian. They shimmy on iPhones, bounce on computer screens, spin on cable TV's, and hang out on restroom doors. Icons are useful because they facilitate succinct communication. While their form is simple, their comprehension can be extensive. Indeed, nearly all communication happens through the interaction of symbols. Icons, ancestors of the earliest known forms of writing, have been a functional part of daily life since the pyramids were built so why study them now?A sufficient reason would be that many icons are not understood as intended. The ISO (2007) and ANSI (2007) recommend 85% correct comprehension for all warning symbols. A 2010 USA Today article titled "One third of drivers can't recognize this idiot light" (Woodyard, 2010) reported that a tire inflation pressure warning icon mandated by law, was not understood by 60% of drivers: 46% couldn't even identify the symbol as a tire! Our own icon comprehension studies show depressingly similar results. Only eight of a set of 54 medical icons that were carefully designed to cross language and cultural barriers achieve 85% comprehension by subjects in the USA, and just 3 of those icons were comprehended at the 85% level by subjects in Tanzania. Indeed, fewer than 1 in 10 Tanzanians, many of whom had advanced medical training, could correctly identify 19 of the 54 medical icons. That's a failure rate of 90%.Despite the common failure of icons, little is written about how they work from either a theoretical or a practical 'how-to' perspective. Beginning with Dreyfuss' Symbol Sourcebook (Dreyfuss, 1972) there has been steady parade of books that exhibit the latest symbols and icons, but few if any of these tomes explain how visual symbols work or how they might be made to work better. That is the gap our icon research seeks to fill. This paper describes a research study that measured the impact different combinations of symbols have on the comprehension of four icons. Based on this we identify some patterns, sketch some initial hypotheses for how people construct meaning from symbols, and propose some how-to rules of thumb to guide the design of more effective icons.symbols and iConsBesides being ubiquitous and utilitarian, icons are significant objects of study. Icons have simplicity of form compared with many other communication materials whose visual forms are much more complex. Icon's lean visual form reduces interpretive complexity. Icons also tend to have a very definite intended meaning: the referent...This gives icons an established measure of comprehension success. Icons are typically created in a consistent graphic style. Since standardization efforts in the 1970's, notably the US Department of Transportation's commission of the AIGA to produce a standard symbol set, icons for a wide range of referents have followed the highly abstract round head and mitten hands familiar on restroom doors. Thus a wide variety of subject matter is available in a consistent visual style, facilitating study. While we are aware of one study that explores the effectiveness of this common style (Marom-Tock & Goldschmidt, 2011), similarity of style -however effective - has the benefit of reducing the number of variables in comprehension testing. …