The human factors of the conspicuous Babel fish; dyadic referencing through icons

References

• Adams, D (1979) The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, Pan Macmillan, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Arend U, Muthig K P, & Wandmacher J, (1987). Evidence for global feature superiority in menu selection by pictures. Behavior and Information Technology, 6, 411–426.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, P. E., Matlack, R., Dunn, K. A., Kesler, C., Brown, C. K., 1995. Discharge instructions: do illustrations help our patients understand them? Annals of Emergency Medicine 25 (3), 317–320.
   Google Scholar
• Babbitt Kline, T. J., Ghali, L. M., Kline, D. W., Brown, S., 1990. Visibility distance of highway signs among young, middle-aged, and older observers: icons are better than text. Human Factors 32 (5), 609–619.
   Google Scholar
• Bartram, D.J. (1973). The effects of familiarity and practice on naming pictures of objects, Memory & Cognition, 1, 101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Bewley, W.L., Roberts, T.L, Schroit, D. & Verplank, W.l. (1983). Human factors testing in the desing of Xerox’s 8010 « Star » office workstation. Proc. ACM CHI’83 Conf. Boston, MA, 12–15 December, 72–77.
   Google Scholar
• Brems, D., & Witten, W. (1987). Learning and preference for icon-based interface. Proceedings of the human Society; 31st Annual Meeting, pp125–129, Santa Monica, The Society.
   Google Scholar
• Brugger, C. (1990). Advances in the international standardisation of public information symbols, Information design journal, 6/1, 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Brunel, N., & Ninio, J (1997). Time to detect the difference between two images presented side by side, Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 4, 273–282.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, M.D. (1993). Using icons to find documents: Simplicity is critical. Proceedings of the conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, INTERCHI ’93. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Buchler, J,. (1955). In (ed) Philosophical Writings of Pierce, NY, Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Cahill, M.C. (1975) Interpretability of Graphic Symbols as a function of context and experience factors, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,3, 376–380.
   Google Scholar
• Choong, Yee-Yin., & Salvendy, G (1998). Design of icons for use by Chinese in mainland China, Interacting with computers, 9, 417–430.
   Google Scholar
• Cowgill, J., Bolek, J., 2003. Symbol Usage in Health Care Settings for People with Limited English Proficiency: Part One: Evaluation of Use o Symbol Graphics in Medical Settings. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Scottsdale, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Del Galdo & Nielson (1996) International user interfaces. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Delp, C., Jones, J., 1996. Communicating information to patients: the use of cartoon illustrations to improve comprehension of instructions. Academic Emergency Medicine 3 (3), 264–270.
   Google Scholar
• Easterby, R & Zwaga, H. (1984). Information Design. The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. NY, John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Ells, J.G. & Dewar, R.E. (1979). Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages, Human Factors, 21, 161–168.
   Google Scholar
• Erdinc, O (2010). Comprehension and hazard communication of three pictorial symbols designed for flight manual warnings, Safety Science 48 (2010) 478–481
   Google Scholar
• Evamy, M (2003) World without words, Watson-Guptill Publications, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Familant, M.E. & Detwailer, M.C. (1993). Iconic reference: evolving perspectives and an organising framework. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 705–728.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, D.L. & Tanner, N.S. (1992). Optimal symbol set selection: a semi-automated procedure, Human Factors, 34(1), 79–95.
   Google Scholar
• Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring icon complexity: an automated analysis, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35 (2), 334–342
   Google Scholar
• Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., Mulhern, G & Sawey, M. (2008). Confounds in Pictorial sets: the role of complexity and familiarity in basic-level picture processing, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 40, 1, 116–129.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, M., Badre, A.N. & Stasko J.T. (1994). Development and validation of icons varying in their abstractness, Interacting with Computers, 6, 2. 191–211.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W., 1986. Auditory icons: using sound in computer interface. Human-Computer Interaction 2 (2), 167–177.
   Google Scholar
• Geiselman, R.E., Landee, B.M. & Christen, F.G. (1982). Perceptual discriminability as a basis for selecting graphic symbols. Human Factors, 24, 329–337.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. [Classical statements of Gibson’s ‘direct’ account of vision].
   Google Scholar
• Goonetilleke, R.S., Shih, H,M., Kai On, Hung., & Fritsch, J. (2001). Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 55, Issue 5, November 2001, Pages 741–760
   Google Scholar
• Green, A.J.K. & Barnard, P.J. (1990) interfacing: The role of icon distinctiveness fixed or variable screen locations (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction‘90. North-Holland: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Guastello, S.J. & Trait, M. (1989). Verbal versus pictorial representations of objects in a human-computer interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 99–120.
   Google Scholar
• Holdcroft, D. (1991). Saussure: Signs, Systems and Arbitrariness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, W. (1994). The Icon Book. Visual symbols for computer systems and documentation, NY, John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• International Standards Organisation. (1984). International standard for safety colours and safety signs: ISO 3864, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• International Standards Organisation. (1995). ISO 2575: Road Vehicles-Symbols for controls, indicators and tell-tales. Geneva, Author.
   Google Scholar
• International Standards Organisation. (2000). ISO/IEC 11581–1. Information technology-User system interfaces and symbols-Icon symbols and functions. Part 1, Icons General; Part 2, Object Icons; Part 3, Pointer Icons; Part 6, Action icons. Switzerland. Author.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., Roberts, T.L., Verplank, W., Smith, D.C., Irby, C.H.., Beard, M & Mackey, K. (1989). The Xerox Star: A Retrospective. IEEE, 11–28.
   Google Scholar
• Jolly, B. T., Scott, J. L., Sanford, S. M., 1995. Simplification of emergency department discharge instructions improves patient comprehension. Annals of Emergency Medicine 26 (4), 443- 446.
   Google Scholar
• Kacmar, C.J. & Carey, J.M. (1991). Assessing the usability of icons in user interfaces, Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 6, 443–457.
   Google Scholar
• Kong-king S., & Shih-miao H., (2003) Factors affecting preference ratings of prohibitive symbols, Applied Ergonomics 34, 581–587
   Google Scholar
• Kinross, R. (1981). On the influence of ISOTYPE, Information Design Journal, 11, 122–130.
   Google Scholar
• Lansdale, M.W., Simpson, M. & Stroud, T.R.M. (1990). A comparison of words and icons as external memory aids in an information retrieval task. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9, 2, 111–131.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, R. (1999). Cultural differences in icon recognition. In: Salvendy, g., Smith, M., Koubek, R (Eds.), Design of computing systems Vol 1, proceedings of the eighth international conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 725–729.
   Google Scholar
• Lindgaard, G., Chessari, J., & Ihsen, E. (1987). Icons in telecommunications: What makes pictorial information comprehensible to the user? Australian Telecommunication Research 21, 2, 17–29.
   Google Scholar
• Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J., 2003. Universal Principles of Design. Rockport, Gloucester, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, R. (1999). Cultural differences in icon recognition. In: Salvendy, g., Smith, M., Koubek, R (Eds.), Design of computing systems Vol 1, proceedings of the eighth international conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 725–729.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall, S., Curry, M.B., & Bruijn, de, O. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behaviour Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 31,3, 487–519.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall S.J.P., Bruijn, de, 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(4): 291–306.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall, S., Curry, M., & De Bruijn, O. (2001). The effects of visual information on Users’ mental models: An evaluation of pathfinder analysis as a measure of icon usability. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5 (1), 59–84.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall, S., Forsythe, A. & Stares, L. (2005). Icon use by different language groups: Changes in icon perception with cue utility. In M.F. Costabile & F.Paterno (Eds.) Interact 2005, 1083–1086.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall S, Tyrer V, Folkard S. (2006). Searching for signs, symbols, and icons: effects of time of day, visual complexity, and grouping, Journal of Experimental Psychology; Applied. Jun;12(2):118–28
   Google Scholar
• Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, L.A., Magurno, A, B., Glover, B, L. & Wogalter, M, S. (1998). Prohibitive pictorials Evaluation of different circle-slash negation symbols. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 473–482.
   Google Scholar
• Neurath, M. (1984). ISOTYPE; Education through the eye. In Dreyfuss, Symbol Sourcebook; An authoritative guide to international graphic symbols, NY, Van Hostrand, Reinhold Company.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. (1996). International User Interfaces (eds) del Galdo E. and Nielsen, J. John NY. Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Nijhuis, W., & Boersema, T. (1999). Co-operation between graphic designers and applied behavioural researchers. (eds.) In (eds). Zwaga, H.J.G., Boersema, T. & Hoonhount, H.C.M. Visual information for everyday use; Design and research perspectives. London, Taylor Francis. pp21–41.
   Google Scholar
• Onibere, E.A., Morgan, S., Busang, E.M., & Mpoeleng, D. (2001), Human-Computer Interface design issues for a multi-cultural multiilingual English speaking country – Botswana, Interacting with Computers, 13, 497- 512.
   Google Scholar
• Piamonte, DPT., John D.A. Abeysekera, JDA., & Ohlsson, K (2001). Understanding small graphical symbols: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 27 (2001) 399–404
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, C.S. (1933). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (Eds.), Harvard University Press, v3.
   Google Scholar
• Ramakrishnan, A. S., Cranston, R.L., Rosiles, A., Wagner, D., & Mital, A (1999). Study of symbols coding in airway facilities, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25, 39–50.
   Google Scholar
• Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkierlman, P. (2004) Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review. 8 (4);364–382
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, J (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; Signals signs, and symbols and other distinction in human performance models, IEEE Transactions of systems, man, and cybernetics, Vol. SMC-13 (3), 257–266.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, J., & Goodstein, L. P.. (1987). Decision support in supervisory control of high-risk industrial systems, Automatica, 23, 663–671.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, M.L. Zanotti, A., Jacko, A., (1997). Cultural differences in the perception of responsibly for child safety. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 39th Annual Meeting, Human Factors, Santa Monica, pp. 1015–1019.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (1986). Evaluating the meaningfulness of icon sets to represent command operations. In M.D. Harrision & A.F. Monk (eds). People and Computers: Designing for Usability, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (1989). Icon design for the user interface, International review of Ergonomics, 2, 129–154.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. & Oborne, DJ. (1987). Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in relation to human computer interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 99–112.
   Google Scholar
• Saussure, F, de ([1916] 1983): Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver (1949): A Mathematical Model of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, D., Irby, C., Kimbal, R & Verplank, B. (1980). Designing the Star User Interface. Byte, April 1982, 242–282.
   Google Scholar
• Sonesson, G. (1989). Pictorial Concepts, Lund, Lund University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sonesson, G. (1993). Pictorial semiotics, perceptual ecology and Gestalt theory, Semiotica, 99, 3–4, 319–399.
   Google Scholar
• Stammers, R.B. (1990). Judged appropriateness of icons as a predictor of identification performance. In: E. J. Lovesey (ed) Contemporary Ergonomics, London, Francis Taylor.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 416–421. London, Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Stammers, R.B. & Hoffman, J. (1991). Transfer Between Icon Sets and Ratings of Icon Concreteness and Appropriateness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 354–358. San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng, O.C.S., Trung, N.T. & Rieber, R.W. (1990) Cross-cultural comparisons on psycho-semantics of icons and graphics, International Journal of Psychology, 25, 77–97.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, An-Hsiang, & Chun-Cheng Chi (2003) Effects of hazardous material symbol labeling and training on comprehension according to three types of educational specialization, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31 343–355.
   Google Scholar
• Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retentions. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18(2), 68–82.
   Google Scholar
• Zwaga, H.J., Boersema, T., & Hoonhout, H. (1999). By way of introduction: guidelines and design specifications in information design; historical perspective, In (eds.). Visual information for everyday use; Design and research perspectives, UK, Taylor Francis.
   Google Scholar