Cover not available

Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 21:1 (2014) ► pp.5–17

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Classification analysis on proximate contexts from graphic symbols

The AIGA system

Published online: 22 May 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.21.1.03hsu
Graphic symbol recognition is influenced by proximate context. Hence, this study used card sorting to classify the proximate context and conducted a cluster analysis to compare the differences in clustering processes between participants divided into “design group” and “general group.” Results showed that a high commonality in classifying proximate context existed between the design group and general group. Proximate contexts were classified into seven categories: “icon,” “sign,” “direction,” “direction + icon,” “human + icon,” “sign + icon,” and “icon + icon.” Additionally, three types of clustering differences were found: agreement difference, assignment difference, and sub-cluster difference.
References (15)
Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1998). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 201, 38–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cairney, P., & Sless, D. (1982). Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13 (2), 91–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chuang, Y.L., & Chen, L.L. (2003). Computer Aided Kansei Engineering with XML Technology (Tech. Rep. No. NSC 92-2411H011007). Taipei: Taiwan National Science Council.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glennen, S.L., & DeCoste, D.C. (1997). The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego: Singular Pub.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsu, T.F., & Lin, P.C. (2008). Recognition efficiency and pattern of graphical symbols based on information loads and cognitive styles: A study of AIGA symbols. Journal of Design Science, 11(1), 87–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, J.Y. (2000). Multivariate Statistical Analysis: an introduction. Taipei: China's economy Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kinross, R. (1981). On the influence of Isotype. Information Design Journal, 2 (2), 122–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, C.R. (1997). The recognition and message reception of visual symbol (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Su, T.T. (2001). A study on the formation recognition of “certification mark” in Taiwan area (Unpublished master's thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Tullis, T., & Wood, L. E. (2004, June). How Many Users Are Enough for a Card-Sorting Study? Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Usability Professionals Association , Minneapolis, MN.
Wang, M.J. (1995). Probing into the land of visual context. Artist Magazine, 241, 460.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, R., & Hsu, C.C. (2006). Study of the design operation of graphic simplification. The Design Journal, 10 (3), 54–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zender, M. (2006). Advancing icon design for global non verbal communication: or What does the word Bow mean? Visible Language, 40 (2), 177–206.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaga, H.J.G., & Easterby, R.S. (1984). Developing effective symbols for public information. In R.S. Easterby & H.J.G. Zwaga (Eds.), Information Design: The Design and Evaluation of Signs and Printed Material (pp. 277–297). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue