Search

Icons, or pictorial and graphical objects, are commonly used in human-computer interaction (HCI) fields as the mediator in order to communicate information to users. Yet there has been little studies focusing on a majority of the world's population – semi-literate communities – in terms of the fundamental knowhow for designing icons for such population. In this study, two sets of icons belonging in different icon taxonomy – abstract and concrete – are designed for a mobile application for semi-literate agricultural communities. In this paper, we propose a triadic relationship of an icon, namely meaning, task and mental image, which inherits the triadic relationship of a sign. User testing with the application and a post-pilot questionnaire are conducted as the experimental approach in two rural villages in India. Icons belonging to concrete taxonomy perform better than abstract icons on the premise that the design of the icon fulfills the underlying rules of the proposed triadic relationship., {"references":["ITU. Measuring the Information Society: The ICT Development Index.\nInternational Telecommunications Union, 2012.","UNCTAD. Information economy report: science and technology for\ndevelopment - The new paradigm of ICT. United Nation Conference on\nTrade and Development, 2012.","Half of India's homes have cellphones, but not toilets.\nhttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2992061.ece, 2012.","Garcia, M., Badre, A. N., and Stasko, J. T. Development and validation\nof icons varying in their abstractness. Interacting with Computers 6,\n(1994), 191-211.","Schroder, S., and Ziefle, M. Effects of icon concreteness and complexity\non semantic transparency: younger vs. older users. Presented at\nconference, ICCHP '08 Proceedings of the 11th international conference\non Computers Helping People with Special Needs. 2008.","Gittins, D. Icon-based human-computer interaction. International\nJournal of Man Machine Studies 24, (1986), 519-543.","McDougall, S. J. P., Curry, M. B., and de Bruijn, O. Exploring the\neffects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon\nconcreteness, complexity and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental\nPsychology: Applied 6, 3 (2000), 291-306.","Caplin, S. Icon design: Graphics Icons in Computer Interface Design.\nCassell, 2001.","Havelock, E. A. Prologue to Greek Literacy. University of Cincinnati\nPress, 1971.\n[10] Grisedale, S., Graves, M., and Grunsteidel, A. Designing a graphical\nuser interface for healthcare workers in rural India. Presented at\nconference, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in\nComputing Systems (CHI) (1997).\n[11] Parikh, T., Ghosh, K., and Chavan, A. Design considerations for a\nfinancial management system for rural, semi-literate users. Proceedings\nof the ACM Conference on Human Computer Factors in Computer\nSystems (CHI) (2003).\n[12] Medhi, I., Sagar, A., and Toyama, K. Text-Free user interfaces for\nilliterate and semiliterate users. Inf. Technol. Int. Devel 4, 1 (2007),\n37-50.\n[13] Arend, U., Muthig, K.-P., and Wandmacher, J. Evidence for global\nfeature superiority in menu selection by icons. Behavior and Information\nTechnology 6, (1987), 411-426.\n[14] Rogers, Y., and Oborne, D. J. Pictorial communication of abstract verbs\nin related to human-computer interaction. British Journal of\nPshychology 78, (1987), 99-112.\n[15] Stammer, R. B., George, D. A., and Carey, M. S. An Evaluation of\nAbstract and Concrete Icons for A CAD Package. In E. D. Megaw, ed.,\nContemporary ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, 1989.\n[16] Stammer, R. B., and Hoffman, J. Transfer between icon sets and ratings\nof icon concreteness and appropriatness. Proceedings of the Human\nFactors Society 35th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, (1991).\n[17] Stotts, D. B. The usefulness of icons on the computer interface: Effect of\ngraphical abstraction and functional representation on experienced and\nnovice users. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics\nSociety 42nd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, (1998).\n[18] Rogers, Y. Icons at the interface: their underfulness. Interacting with\nComputers 1, (1989), 105-117.\n[19] Santa, M., Debasis, S., Satya, R. D., et al. Language independent\nicon-based interface for accessing internet. Advanced in Computing and\nCommunications 191, 3 (2011), 172-182.\n[20] Statistics, UNESCO Institue for.\nhttp://www.uis.unesco.org/literacy/Pages/adult-youth-literacy-data-viz.a\nspx.\n[21] Cooper, A., and Reimann, R. About Face 2.0, The Essentials of\nInteraction Design. Wiley Publishing, 2003.\n[22] Chipchase, J. Understanding Non-Literacy as A Barrier to Mobile Phone\nCommunication, 2005.\n[23] Indrani, M., Somani, P., Emma, B., et al. Designing mobile interfaces\nfor novie and low-literacy users. ACM Transactions on\nComputer-Human Interaction 18, 1 (2011), 2-28.\n[24] Ivatury, G. Harnessing technology to transform financial services for the\npoor. Small Enterpr. Devel. 15, 4 (2004), 25-30.\n[25] Thatcher, A., Shaik, F., and Zimmerman, C. Attitudes of semi-literate\nand literate bank account holders to the use of automatic teller machines\n(ATM). Int. J. Industrial Ergonomics 35, (2005), 15-30.\n[26] Thatcher, A., Mahlangu, S., and Zimmerman, C. Accessibility of ATMs\nfor the functionality illiterate through icon-based interfaces. Behav. Inf.\nTechnol. 25, 1 (2006), 65-81.\n[27] Sheetal, K. A., Arun, K., Amit, A. N., et al. User-generated content\ncreation and dissemination in rural areas. USC Annenberg School for\nCommunication & Journalism 6, 2 (2010), 21-37.\n[28] Frohlich, D. M., Rachovides, D., Riga, K., et al. Storybank: mobile\ndigital storytelling in a development context, Human Factors Computing\nSystems (CHI '09), (2009), 1761-1770.\n[29] Andrew, M., Gary, M., and Richard, H. Making the link - providing\nmobile media for novice communities in the developing world.\nInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69, (2011), 647-657.\n[30] Peierce, C. S. Collected Papers. Harvard University Press, 1931.\n[31] Nadin, M. Interface design: a semiotic paradigm. Semiotica 69, 3/4\n(1998), 269-302.\n[32] Buchanan, R. Declaration by design: rhetoric, argument, and\ndemonstration in design practice. Design Issues 2, 1 (1985), 4-22.\n[33] Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective\nHuman-Computer Interaction. Addision-Wesley, 1997.\n[34] Siau, K. Human-computer interaction: the effect of application domain\nknowledge on icon visualization. J. of Computer Information Systems 45,\n3 (2005), 53-62.\n[35] Kosslyn, S. M. Scanning visual Images: some structural imagination,\nPerception and Psychophysics, 1979.\n[36] Miller, A. Imagery in Scientific Thought. MIT Press, 1986.\n[37] Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 1990.\n[38] Norman, D. Things That Make Us Smart. Addison-Wesley, 1993.\n[39] Blankenbergers, S., and Hahn, K. Effects of icon design on\nhuman-computer interaction. International Journal of Man Machine\nStudies 35, (1991), 363-377.\n[40] Isherwood, S. J., McDougall, S. J. P., and Curry, M. B. Icon\nidentification in context: the changing role of icon characteristics with\nuser experience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and\nErgonomics Society 49, 3 (2007), 465-478.\n[41] Wang, H.-F., Hung, S.-H., and Liao, C.-C. A survey on of icon\ntaxonomy used in the interface design. 14th European conference on\nCognitive Ergonomics. London, 2007.\n[42] Lodding, K. N. Iconic interfacing. IEEE Computer Graphics and\nApplications 3, 2 (1983), 11-20.\n[43] Blattner, M. A., Sumikawa, D. A., and Greenberg, R. A. Earcons and\nicons: their structure and common design principles. Human-computer\ninteractions 4, 1 (1989), 11-40.\n[44] Purchase, H. Defining multimedia. IEEE Multimedia 5, 1 (1998), 8-15.\n[45] Lidwell, W., Holden, K., and Butler, J. Universal Principles of Design.\nRockport Publishers, 2003.\n[46] Moyes, J., and Jordan, P. W. Icon design and its effect on guessability,\nlearnability and experienced user performance. People and Computers\nVIII (1993), 49-59.\n[47] Sarah, I. Graphics and semantics: the relationship between what is seen\nand what is meant in icon design. Engin. Psychol. and Cog. Ergonomics\n(2009), 197-205.\n[48] Kim, J. H., and Lee, K. P. Cultural difference and mobile phone\ninterface design: icon recognition according to level of abstraction,\nMobileHCI'05, 2005.\n[49] Pappachan, P., and Ziefle, M. Cultural Influences on the\ncomprehensibility of icons in mobile-computer interaction. Behavior and\nInformation Technology 47, 4 (2008), 331-337.\n[50] Satchell, C., and Ziefle, M. The smart phone as globalizing icon of the\nearly 21st century.\nhttp://www.ucd.smartinternet.com.au/Documents/MobilePhone_Globali\nzing.pdf, 2010.\n[51] Ferguson, A., and Brown, W. Standard symbols - using the iso test\nmethod. In P. T. McCabe, ed., Contemporary Ergonomics. Taylor &\nFrancis, 2003."]}