Graphical symbols: the effects of information loads on recognition performance

• Main Authors: Tzu-Fan Hsu, 許子凡
• Other Authors: Pin-chang Lin
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/82310899549868452493

博士 === 國立臺灣科技大學 === 設計研究所 === 98 === Based on the aspect of information load, this study evaluated the recognition performance of graphical symbol in terms of accuracy ratio and response time in order to explore the recognition commonality and differentiation between the people with different educational backgrounds. To build the fundamental theory of experiment, this study conducted literature reviews with related research fields, utilizing the AIGA pictograms system as source template, and divided the operational methods of information load into: classification by category, that is combination mode, and classification by level, that is information amount. The whole experiment was preceded in three phases: (1) Classifying the combination modes of graphical symbol and the types of symbol objects; (2) Evaluating the recognition performance among combination modes and educational backgrounds; (3) Evaluating the recognition performance between information load levels and educational backgrounds. The findings may provide references for visual communication, and enable designers to enhance users’ performance and experience in the recognition of graphical symbols. The results obtained by the study are as followed. 1.The combination modes of graphical symbols are categorized into: “direction + icon”, “human + icon”, “symbol + icon”, and “icon + icon”. A high commonality exists in the categorized result between people with different educational backgrounds, showing a support to improve the recognition performance by applying its concept in visual communication. 2.From the angle of card sorting manipulation, the design group and the general group had the common clustering results; however, the slight differences still existed in the clustering process between them, which were: (1) agreement difference; (2) assignment difference; and (3) sub-cluster difference. 3.Under the same design quality, “direction + icon” showed the best recognition performance in terms of accuracy ratio and response time, followed by “human + icon”. “icon + icon” performed better than “sign + icon” in response time, but the difference in accuracy ratio was insignificant. It was determined that the combination mode was an effective variable for recognition. 4.The information amount of graphical symbol was measured by information theory. The graphical symbol with low information load was better for effectiveness and efficiency. Although high information load might have a benefit of message amount, it was not necessarily positive about the recognition performance. 5.People with design background perform better than those with general background in accuracy ratio; however, there are no significant differences shown in response time. The errors are classified into three types: mistaken icon identity; (2) deviation of inference; (3) failure in generalizing the common concept among icons. To lessen the difference and improve the performance, these recognition commonalities should be considered in design thinking.