The Use of Multimodal Representation in Icon Interpretation

Identifying icon functions differs from naming pictures in that strong semantic links between pictures and their names have been formed over a long period of time whereas the meaning of icons has often to be learned. This paper examines roles of icon characteristics such as complexity, concreteness, familiarity and aesthetic appeal in determining how easily icons can be learned and identified. The role of these characteristics is seen as dynamic, changing as the user learns the icon set. It is argued that the way in which users learn icon meanings is similar to the processes involved in language learning. Icon meanings are learned by drawing on rich multimodal representations which are the result of our world experience. This approach could lead to a better understanding of how multimodal information can be most usefully presented on interfaces.

[1]  T. Jacobsen,et al.  Aesthetic Judgments of Novel Graphic Patterns: Analyses of Individual Judgments , 2002, Perceptual and motor skills.

[2]  Joan Gay Snodgrass,et al.  Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures , 1996 .

[3]  Peter E Keller,et al.  Auditory warnings, signal-referent relations, and natural indicators: re-thinking theory and application. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[4]  Oscar de Bruijn,et al.  Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: the role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. , 2000 .

[5]  A. Clark Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again , 1996 .

[6]  Y. Rogers,et al.  Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in relation to human-computer interaction , 1987 .

[7]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Icon Identification in Context: The Changing Role of Icon Characteristics With User Experience , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Udo Arend,et al.  Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons , 1987 .

[9]  Russell L. Martin,et al.  Learning and Retention of Associations Between Auditory Icons and Denotative Referents: Implications for the Design of Auditory Warnings , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[10]  R. Bornstein Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[11]  Siné McDougall,et al.  What’s in a name? The role of graphics, functions, and their interrelationships in icon identification , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[12]  A. Paivio,et al.  Referential processing: Reciprocity and correlates of naming and imaging , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[13]  Juan Segui,et al.  Predictors of picture naming speed , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[14]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Cascade processes in picture identification , 1988 .

[15]  Catherine J. Stevens,et al.  The User Knows: Considering the Cognitive Contribution of the User in the Design of Auditory Warnings , 2009, HCI.

[16]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[17]  Oshin Vartanian,et al.  Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings , 2004, Neuroreport.

[18]  H. Gleitman,et al.  Human simulations of vocabulary learning , 1999, Cognition.

[19]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[20]  Sarah Isherwood Graphics and Semantics: The Relationship between What Is Seen and What Is Meant in Icon Design , 2009, HCI.

[21]  Matthew A. Lambon Ralph,et al.  Naming in semantic dementia—what matters? , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[22]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Irene Reppa,et al.  Why do I like It? the Relationships between Icon Characteristics, user Performance and Aesthetic Appeal , 2008 .

[24]  S. Zeki,et al.  Neural correlates of beauty. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Patrick Bonin,et al.  A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[26]  Alexandra Forsythe,et al.  Visual Complexity: Is That All There Is? , 2009, HCI.

[27]  F Cuetos,et al.  Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[28]  Derek Scott,et al.  Visual search in modern human-computer interfaces , 1993, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[29]  Earl A. Alluisi,et al.  Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics , 1975 .

[30]  Yili Liu,et al.  Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Philip J. Barnard,et al.  Iconic interfacing: The role of icon distinctiveness and fixed or variable screen locations , 1990, INTERACT.

[32]  Rb Stammers,et al.  Transfer between Icon Sets and Ratings of Icon Concreteness and Appropriateness , 1991 .

[33]  Christopher Barry,et al.  Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart Pictures: Effects of Age of Acquisition, Frequency, and Name Agreement , 1997 .

[34]  Daniel Brandon Stotts,et al.  The Usefulness of Icons on the Computer Interface: Effect of Graphical Abstraction and Functional Representation on Experienced and Novice Users , 1998 .

[35]  Catriona M. Morrison,et al.  Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  Irene Reppa,et al.  Beyond Emoticons: Combining Affect and Cognition in Icon Design , 2009, HCI.

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

[38]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Using icons to find documents: simplicity is critical , 1993, INTERCHI.

[39]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  A multimodal learning interface for grounding spoken language in sensory perceptions , 2004, ACM Trans. Appl. Percept..

[40]  Oscar de Bruijn,et al.  The effects of visual information on users' mental models: an evaluation of pathfinder analysis as a measure of icon usability. , 2001 .

[41]  Denis McKeown,et al.  Mapping Candidate Within-Vehicle Auditory Displays to Their Referents , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[42]  Gerry Mulhern,et al.  Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[43]  Alex Forsythe Visual Complexity: Is that all there is? HCI International , 2009 .

[44]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[45]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live By , 1980 .

[46]  Irene Reppa,et al.  Visual Aesthetic Appeal Speeds Processing of Complex but not Simple Icons , 2008 .