Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols

Abstract

This paper provides rating norms for a set of symbols and icons selected from a wide variety of sources. These ratings enable the effects of symbol characteristics on user performance to be systematically investigated, The symbol characteristics that have been quantified are considered to be of central relevance to symbol usability research and include concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity,and semantic distance. The interrelationships between each ofthese dimensions is examined and the importance of using normative ratings for experimental research is discussed.

What makes icons appealing? The role of processing fluency in predicting icon appeal in different task contexts

“…A set of 239 icons and symbols used by McDougall, Curry & de Bruijn (1999) were used because subjective ratings had already been obtained for a number of characteristics including the perceived (i) visual complexity (ii) concreteness and (iii) familiarity of the icons. The original corpus of icons was chosen from a wide variety of sources to ensure that they were representative of the broad spectrum of applications in which icons and symbols are used.…”

Lisbon Symbol Database (LSD): Subjective norms for 600 symbols

“…Familiarity The familiarity of a symbol refers to the frequency with which it is encountered (McDougall et al, 1999). Familiarity seems to be highly relevant for the accurate understanding of a symbol.…”

“…Additionally, we added two new dimensions-valence and arousal-and collected data regarding the meaning attributed to each stimulus. The motivation for developing norms for this new set, entirely different from existing ones (e.g., McDougall et al, 1999), was twofold. First, we wanted to test a broader range of stimuli in order to have a more diverse pool from which different subsets can be selected.…”

“…From the semiotic standpoint, a sign constitutes a part of a triadic relation composed of an object (the referent), a sign, and an interpretant (connecting the previous elements). Based on the relationship between a sign and its object, three categories are defined: (a) For icons, the relationship is based on similarity (e.g., caricature); (b) for indexes, the relationship is based on a real direct connection (e.g., fingerprint); and (c) for symbols, the relationship is based on an arbitrary convention (e.g., a national flag; for reviews on this matter, see Harbeck, 2011;McDougall, Curry, & de Bruijn, 1999;Nakamura & Zeng-Treitler, 2012). However, as was noted by Nakamura and Zeng-Treitler, the distinction between different types of signs is not always clear, and authors often redefine these concepts in an attempt to clarify the stimuli they are referring to.…”

“…Each symbol was evaluated in five of the dimensions used by McDougall (McDougall et al, 1999;: familiarity (subjective frequency), visual complexity, concreteness, aesthetic appeal and meaningfulness. Additionally, we added two new dimensions-valence and arousal-and collected data regarding the meaning attributed to each stimulus.…”