Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 487-519

  McDougall, Siné J P ^a   Curry, Martin B ^b   De Bruijn, Oscar ^a  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b BAE SYSTEMS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMANTICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMANTICS; WALES;

EID: 0033174852     PISSN: 07433808     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03200730     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF GRAPHIC ARTS (1982). Symbol signs. New York: Hastings House.
2. AREND, U., MUTHIG, K.-P., & WANDMACHER, J. (1987). Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons. Behaviour & Information Technology, 6, 411-426.
3. ARNSTEIN, J. (1983). The international directory of graphic symbols. London: Kogan Page.
4. BENJAFIELD, J., FROMMHOLD, K., KEENAN, T., MUCKENHEIM, R., & MUELLER, D. (1993). Imagery, concreteness, goodness, and familiarity ratings for 500 proverbs sampled from the Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 27-40.
5. BENJAFIELD, J., & MUCKENHEIM, R. (1989). Dates of entry and measures of imagery, concreteness, goodness, and familiarity for 1,046 words sampled from the Oxford English Dictionary. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21, 31-52.
6. BLATTNER, M. M., SUMIKAWA, D. A., & GREENBERG, R. M. (1989) Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles. Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 11-44.
7. BOCKER, M. (1993, May). A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictograms. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of Human Factors in Telecommunication (pp. 73-84). Heidelberg: R v Deekers Verlag, G. Schenck GmBH.
8. BREMS, D. J., & WHITTEN, W. B. (1987). Learning and preference for icon-based interface. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-first Annual Meeting (pp. 125-129). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
9. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1989). 5817-8 specification for audio-visual, video and television equipment and systems. London: BSI
10. BYRNE, M. D. (1993). Using icons to find documents. Simplicity is critical. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. White (Eds.), INTERCHI '93 - Bridges between worlds: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 446-453). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. CAHILL, M. (1975). The interpretability of graphic symbols as a function of context and experience factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 360-380.
12. CHRIST, R. E., & CORSO, G. (1982). The effects of extended practice on the evaluation of visual display codes. Human Factors, 25, 71-84.
13. DEATON, J. E., BARNES, M. KERN, J., & WRIGHT, D. (1990). An evaluation of the augie arrow HUD symbology as an aid to recovery from unusual attitudes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting (pp. 31-35). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
14. EASTERBY, R. S. (1970). The perception of symbols for machine displays. Ergonomics, 13, 149-158.
15. ELLS, J. G., & DEWAR, R. E. (1979). Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Factors, 21, 161-168.
16. FAMILANT, E. M., & DETWEILER, M. C. (1993). Iconic reference: Evolving perspectives and an organising framework. International Journal of Man Machine Studies. 39, 705-728.
17. FLACH, J. M., & VICENTE, K. J. (1989). Complexity, difficulty, direct manipulation and direct perception (Tech. Rep. EPRL-89-03). Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois, Engineering Psychology Research Laboratory.
18. FRIENDLY, M., FRANKLIN, P. E., HOFFMAN, D. & RUBIN, D. C. (1982). The Toronto Word Pool: Norms for imagery, concreteness, orthographic variables, and grammatical usage for 1,080 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14, 375-399.
19. GARCIA, M., BADRE, A. N., & STASKO, J. T. (1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers, 6, 191-211.
20. GILHOOLY, K. J., & LOGIE, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
21. GITTINS, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543.
22. GREEN, A. J. K., & BARNARD, P. J. (1990). Iconic interfacing: The role of icon distinctiveness and fixed or variable screen locations. In D. Diaper et al. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - Interact '90 (pp. 457-462). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. GREEN, P. (1993). Design and evaluation of symbols for automobile controls and displays. In B. Peacock & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive ergonomics (pp. 237-268). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
24. HARTSHORNE, D. WEISS, P., & BURKS, A. (EDS.) (1958). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. HORTON. W. (1994). The icon book: Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. New York: Wiley.
26. HOWELL, W. E. & FUCHS, A. F. (1968). Population stereotype in code design. Organisational Behavior & Human Performance, 3, 310-339.
27. INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION (1973). IEC 417: Graphical symbols for use on equipment. Geneva: Author.
28. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION (1982). Benefits of standardisation: Methods of assessing the effects of standardisation. Geneva: Author.
29. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION (1989). ISO 7000: Graphical symbols for use on equipment - Index and synopsis. Geneva: Author.
30. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION (1990). ISO 7001: Specification for public information symbols. Geneva: Author.
31. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION (1994). ISO brochure: Compatible technology world-wide. Geneva: Author.
32. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANISATION (1995). ISO 2575: Road vehicles - Symbols for controls, indicators and tell-tales. Geneva: Author.
33. JONES, S. (1983). Stereotypy in pictograms of abstract concepts. Ergonomics, 26, 605-611.
34. KIRKPATRICK, M., DUTRA, L. A., LYONS, R. A., OSGA, G. A., & PUCCI, J. J. (1992). Tactical symbology standards. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting (pp. 1087-1091). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
35. LACHMAN, R., & LACHMAN, J. L. (1980). Picture naming: Retrieval and activation of long-term memory. In L. W. Poon, J. L. Fozard, L. S. Cermak, D. Arenberg, & L. W. Thompson (Eds.), New directions in memory and ageing (pp. 313-343). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. MARGONO, S., & SHNEIDERMAN, B. (1987). A study of file manipulation by novices using commands vs direct manipulation. In B. Shneiderman (Ed.), Sparks of innovation in the human-computer interface (pp. 39-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37. MARTEIN, R. (1995). Norms for name and concept agreement, familiarity. visual complexity and image agreement on a set of 216 pictures. Psychologica Belgica, 35, 205-225.
38. MCDOUGALL, S. J. P., CURRY, M., & DE BRUIJN, O. (1996). A review of symbol characteristics and their effects on usability (Document D1, British Aerospace Effective Symbology Project).
39. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (1989). Microsoft Access 2.0. Redmond, WA: Author.
40. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (1995). Microsoft Word for Windows '95, Version 7. Redmond, WA: Author.
41. MOYES, J., & JORDAN, P. W. (1993). Icon design and its effect on guessability, learnability and experienced user performance. In J. L. Alty, D. Diaper, & S. Guest (Eds.), People and computers VIII (pp. 49-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. MUTER, P., & MAYSON, C. (1986). The role of graphics in item selection from menus. Behaviour & Information Technology, 5, 89-95.
43. NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION (1989). STANAG 4420: Display symbology and colors for NATO maritime units. Brussels: Author.
44. PAIVIO, A., YUILLE., J. C., & MADIGAN, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76, 1-25.
45. QUINLAN, P. (1992). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. ROGERS, Y. (1986). Evaluating the meaningfulness of icon sets to represent command operations. In M. D. Harrison & A. F. Monk (Eds.), People and Computers: Designing for usability (pp. 586-603). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. ROGERS, Y. (1988). Pictorial representations of abstract concepts in relation to human computer interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis, University of Wales Swansea.
48. ROGERS, Y. (1989). Icon design for the user interface. International Review of Ergonomics, 2, 129-154.
49. ROGERS, Y., & OBORNE, D. J. (1987). Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in relation to human-computer interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 99-112.
50. ROHR, G., & KEPPEL, E. (1985). Iconic interfaces: Where to use and how to construct. In H. W. Hendrick & O. Brown (Eds.), Human factors in organisation design and management (pp. 269-275). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51. SANFELIU, M. C., & FERNANDEZ, A. (1996). A set of 254 Snodgrass-Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 537-555.
52. SNODGRASS, J. G., & VANDERWART, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215.
53. SNODGRASS, J. G., & YUDITSKY, T. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods. Instruments, & Computers, 28, 516-536.
54. SPREEN, O., & SCHULZ, R. W. (1966). Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronounceability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 5, 459-468.
55. STAMMERS, R. B., GEORGE, D. A., & CAREY, M. S. (1989). An evaluation of abstract and concrete icons for a CAD package. In E. D. Megaw (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 1989 (pp. 416-421). London: Taylor & Francis.
56. STAMMERS, R. B., & HOFFMAN, J. (1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting (pp. 354-358). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
57. TOGLIA, M. P., & BATTIG, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic world norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. TULLIS, T. S. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Human Factors, 25, 657-682.
59. VAN SCHAGEN, I., TAMSMA, N., BRUGGGEMANN, F., JACKSON, J. L., & MICHON, J. A. (1983). Namen en normen voor plaatje [Names and norms for pictures]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 38, 236-241.
60. 3C (1996). HTML predefined icon-like symbols [On-line]. Available HTML: http://www.w3.org/pub/www/tr/wd-wwwicn
61. ZWAGA, H., & EASTERBY, R. (1984). Developing effective symbols for public information. In R. Easterby & H. Zwaga (Eds.), Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material (pp. 277-298). New York: Wiley.