Abstract
Measures of icon designs rely heavily on surveys of the perceptions of population samples. Thus, measuring the extent to which changes in the structure of an icon will alter its perceived complexity can be costly and slow. An automated system capable of producing reliable estimates of perceived complexity could reduce development costs and time. Measures of icon complexity developed by Garcia, Badre, and Stasko (1994) and McDougall, Curry, and de Bruijn (1999) were correlated with six icon properties measured using Matlab (MathWorks, 2001) software, which uses image-processing techniques to measure icon properties. The six icon properties measured were icon foreground, the number of objects in an icon, the number of holes in those objects, and two calculations of icon edges and homogeneity in icon structure. The strongest correlates with human judgments of perceived icon complexity (McDougall et al., 1999) were structural variability (r s = .65) and edge information (r s = .64).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alario, F.-X., &Ferrand, L. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 531–552.
Arend, U., Muthig, K.-P., &Wandmacher, J. (1987). Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by icons.Behaviour & Information Technology,6, 411–426.
Beck, J., Graham, N., &Sutter, A. (1991). Lightness differences and the perceived segregation of regions and populations.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 257–269.
Biederman, I., &Ju, G. (1988). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition.Cognitive Psychology,20, 38–64.
Boucart, M., &Humphreys, G. W. (1992). Global shape cannot be attended without object identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 785–806.
Boucart, M., &Humphreys, G. W. (1995). Automatic access to object identity: Attention to global information, not to particular physical dimensions, is important.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 584–601.
Boucart, M., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Integration of physical and semantic information in object processing.Perception,26, 1197–1209.
Bruyas, M.P., Le Breton, B., &Pauzie, A. (1998). Ergonomic guidelines for the design of pictorial information.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,21, 407–413.
Christ, R. E. (1977, October). Four years of color research for visual displays. InProceedings of the Human Factors Society 21st Annual Meeting. San Francisco.
Davies, S., Haines, H., Norris, B., &Wilson, J. R. (1998). Safety pictograms: Are they getting the message across?Applied Ergonomics,21, 15–23.
Easterby, R., &Zwaga, H. (1984).Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. New York: Wiley.
Fenk, A. (1998). Symbols and icons in diagrammatic representation.Pragmatics & Cognition,6, 301–334.
Garcia, M., Badre, A. N., &Stasko, J. T. (1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness.Interacting With Computers,6, 191–211.
Giannini, A. J., Giannini, J. N., &Condon, M. (2000). Use of tangential visual symbols to increase the long-term learning processes: Applications of linkage in teaching pharmacological principles of addiction.Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,40, 708–712.
Guastello, S. J., &Traut, M. (1989). Verbal versus pictorial representations of objects in a human-computer interface.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,31, 99–120.
Harber, R. N., &Hershenson, M. (1973).The psychology of visual perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Harwerth, R. S., &Levi, D. M. (1978). Reaction time as a measure of suprathreshold grating detection.Vision Research,18, 1579–1586.
Hochberg, J. E. (1968).Perception (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hochberg, J.E., &Brooks, V. (1960). The psychophysics of form: Reversible perspective drawings of spatial objects.American Journal of Psychology,73, 337–354.
Hoeger, R. (1997). Speed of processing and stimulus complexity in low-frequency and high-frequency channels.Perception,26, 1039–1045.
Horton, W. (1994).The icon book. Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation New York: Wiley.
Hummel, J. E., &Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition.Psychological Review,99, 480–517.
International Organization for Standardization (1995).Road Vehicles—Symbols for controls, indicators and tell-tales (ISO 2575). Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization (2000a).Information technology—User system interfaces and symbols—Icon symbols and functions: Part 1. Icons—General (ISO/TEC 11581-1). Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization (2000b).Information technology—User system interfaces and symbols—Icon symbols and functions: Part 2. Object icons (ISO/IEC 11581-2). Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization (2000c).Information technology—User system interfaces and symbols—Icon symbols and functions: Part 3. Pointer icons (ISO/IEC 11581-3). Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization (2000d).Information technology—User system interfaces and symbols—Icon symbols and functions: Part 6. Action icons (ISO/IEC 11581-6). Geneva: Author.
Lindgaard, G., Chessari, J., &Ihsen, E. (1987). Icons in telecommunications: What makes pictorial information comprehensible to the user?Australian Telecommunication Research,21, 17–29.
Maguire, M. C. (1985). A review of human factors guidelines and techniques for the design of graphical human—computer interfaces.Computer & Graphics,9, 221–235.
MathWorks (2001). Image Processing Toolbox, user’s guide Version 3. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McDougall, S. J. P., Curry, M. B., &de Bruijn, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 487–519.
McDougall, S. J. P., de Bruijn, O., &Curry, M. B. (2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity and distinctiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,6, 291–306.
Mead, M., &Modley, R. (1968). Communications among all people, everywhere.Natural History,77, 56–63.
Muter, P., &Mayson, C. (1986). The role of graphics in item selection from menus.Behaviour & Information Technology,5, 89–95.
Neisser, U., &Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events.Cognitive Psychology,7, 480–494.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Noncommand user interfaces.Communications of the ACM,36, 83–99.
Ostergaard, A. L., &Davidoff, J. B. (1985). Some effects of color on naming and recognition of objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 579–587.
Parker, D. M., Lishman, J. R., &Hughes, J. (1997). Integration of spatial information in human vision is temporally anisotropic: Evidence from a spatiotemporal discrimination task,Perception,26, 1169–1180.
Pellegrino, J. W., Rosinski, R. R., Chiesi, H. L., &Siegel, A. (1977). Picture—word differences in decision latency: An analysis of single and dual memory models.Memory & Cognition,5, 383–396.
Piamonet, D. P. T., Abeysekera, J. D. A., &Ohlsson, K. (2001). Understanding small graphical symbols: A cross-cultural study.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,27, 399–404.
Raeder, G. (1985). A survey of current graphical programming techniques.IEEE Computer,18, 11–25.
Rogers, Y., &Oborne, D. J. (1987). Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in relation to human computer interaction.British Journal of Psychology,78, 99–112.
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.
Schwartz, N. H., &Phillippe, A.E. (1991). Individual differences in the retention of maps.Contemporary Educational Psychology,16, 171–182.
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.
Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10,000 pictures.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 207–222.
Sutter, A., Beck, J., &Graham, N. (1989). Contrast and spatial variables in texture segregation: Testing a simple spatial-frequency channels model.Perception & Psychophysics,46, 312–332.
Treisman, A. (1986, November). Features and objects in visual processing.Scientific American,255, 114B-125.
Treisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Treisman, A., &Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic preattentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 285–310.
Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color information displays.Human Factors,23, 541–550.
Vassilev, A., &Mitov, D. (1976). Perceptual time and spatial frequency.Vision Research,16, 89–92.
Walker, R. E., Nicolay, R. C., &Stearns, C. R. (1965). Comparative accuracy of recognizing American and international road signs.Journal of Applied Psychology,49, 322–325.
Wandmacher, J., &Arend, U. (1985). Superiority of global features in classification and matching.Psychological Research,47, 143–157.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supplementary material, including an appendix to this article, is available at http://www.psych.qub.ac.uk/research/projects/aia/.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N. & Sawey, M. Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35, 334–342 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202562
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202562