Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Understanding small graphical symbols: a cross-cultural study
Luleå tekniska universitet.
Luleå tekniska universitet.
Linköpings universitet.
2001 (English)In: International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, ISSN 0169-8141, E-ISSN 1872-8219, Vol. 27, no 6, p. 399-404Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Graphical symbols such as icons or pictograms as interfaces in modern technological devices have become quite common. Although generally designed in western countries, their use can be found worldwide from audio-visual appliances to computers and computer-related devices. A basic ergonomic principle is to involve the potential users in the design and evaluation stages especially when the user groups are quite diverse. This study was part of an international project on evaluating telecommunication symbols. One of the major objectives was to test different graphical symbols (of the videophone), designed, and tested in Western Europe using subject groups from Asia, Europe, and the United States. This paper would discuss the major portions of the tests involving US and Swedish subjects. Performance indices used were hits, certainties, confusions, and semantic differential ratings. They were useful in analysing how the symbols were recognised, confused, and perceived by different subject groups. They also helped detect differences between groups which otherwise seemed to have similar test results. The results showed differences in patterns of ratings, which may be culturally linked and could help determine aspects of symbol design and usage that may be more helpful in designing instructions, learning aids, etc. Awareness of such subject bias and their implications are important on how one interprets the test results.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2001. Vol. 27, no 6, p. 399-404
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Research subject
Engineering Psychology; Industrial Work Environment
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-10073DOI: 10.1016/S0169-8141(01)00007-5ISI: 000168788900006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-0035026586Local ID: 8d39d5f0-cb33-11db-b3ed-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-10073DiVA, id: diva2:983013
Note

Validerad; 2001; 20070305 (ysko)

Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Abeysekera, John D. A.
In the same journal
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and ErgonomicsProduction Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf