The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

Syed Ghayas1,*, Suziah Sulaiman1, Muzafar Khan2, and Jafreezal Jaafar1

1

Computer and Information Sciences Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Tronoh,

Perak, Malaysia
2
Department of Computer Science, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
syedghayas@ciit.net.pk, {suziah,jafreez}@petronas.com.my,
muzafar_khan@comsats.edu.pk

Abstract. Modern mobile phone application interfaces have potential to support

various age group users. Among the different age groups, older adults have
been quite slow in adopting mobile phone applications and its interfaces.
Limited research work has been carried out to investigate the graphical icons
and examine its ease of use for various age group users. This paper presents an
experimental study to determine the recognition rates of icons from two sets of
users with different age groups i.e. younger adults (20 40 years) and older
adults (+50 years). Users responded to a set of questions consisting of 40 icons
obtained from two different brands of mobile phones. The findings reveal that
recognition rates vary depending on how familiar the icons are to the users. The
results from this study could be useful to support application developers to
develop mobile phone applications interfaces that are more suitable for various
age group users.
Keywords: interfaces, icons, icons characteristics, usability, familiarity, recognition.

Introduction

Mobile devices such as cell phones and tablet computers are very common today. A
study has reported that 4.7 billion people used mobile phones in 2009 as compared to
1.4 billion in 2003. These mobile phone users range from children to elderly people.
The diversity of mobile phones users creates a challenge in designing the mobile
phone interfaces. Various usability issues exist due to the declining in users vision,
motor skills and coordination and interface complexity that hinder the adoption of
mobile phones in elderly people as compared to younger adults [25], [28] and [29].
In addressing the interface complexity, the research in [28-29] focus on improving
the initial usability of mobile phone application interfaces graphical icons for various
age group users. There are a few features in which the design of an icon is greatly
affected: those are when these icons are being interpreted, the initial usability of these
icons and the initial usability of the application in which those icons are found.
*

Corresponding author.

H. Badioze Zaman et al. (Eds.): IVIC 2013, LNCS 8237, pp. 652663, 2013.
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

653

Correctly interpreted icons are particularly important in learning to perform tasks on a

mobile phone. Mobile phones have many varieties of functionalities and features
which cannot be found on ordinary laptop computers or desktop based computers, for
example data entry methods and connecting the mobile phone to the Internet. If there
is a need for those functions on the mobile phones, it can only be utilized through
special icons and some buttons. While mobile devices have specialized operating
systems such as Android based, iPhone based, and Symbian based, the desktop
personal computers have the Windows, Macintosh, and Linux based operating
system. Each operating system normally uses its own unique set of designed icons.
Interpreting icons initially may be more complex for mobile phones users because of
the rapid growth in mobile phones and applications. It is common for users replacing
their mobile phones more frequently than their computers systems.
Despite the prevalence of icons, very little research has been carried out on
investigating the effect of graphical icons on various age groups using either ordinary
desktop-based computers or mobile phones. It has been experienced that a decrease in
energy level, vision and memory abilities that all accompanies normal aging might
effect on various age groups users ability in interpreting graphical icons. It also will
help in identifying the visual objects which are present in that icon. As there is a
decrease in energy level, vision and memory abilities of older adults, so if we
compare older adults with younger adults this step may be more challenging. In
research work carried out by Hawthorn, many questions were raised on whether older
adults, as compared to younger adults, are able to benefit as much from the cues
provided by icons for interpreting the icons function. Interpreting an icon also
depends on several factors. As an example, the environment supplied by the software
platform which is using icon, and how many users are familiar with the icons and its
application context [4].
According to research work, a comparison is made between various age group
users while using mobile devices, results of the research shows that older adults have
less experience with those devices and existing icons and applications. The reason is
the natural decrease in vision and verbal abilities, and decrease in the overall ability to
learn and find new associations. We speculated that some icons may be more difficult
for users to initially use, and that there are opportunities to design icons that are easier
for various age group users to initially use those icons [5].
Our earlier qualitative exploratory study has identified which icon characteristics
helps initial icon usability for various age group users [6]. A summary of this work is
presented in Section 3. The findings indicate that older adults have more difficulties
using modern mobile phone application interfaces. The specific icon characteristicssemantic distance (natural close link between icon object and its function), familiarity
(referring to the frequency with which images are encountered), complexity (referring
to the level of difficulty to interpret the image) improve initial icon usability for
older adults. The findings motivate us to conduct an experimental study to determine
the recognition rates of icons from two different age groups i.e. younger adults (20
40 years) and older adults (+50 years). The methodology used for this study is
presented in Section 4. Section 5 reports the study result that involves users response
to survey questions consisting of 40 icons obtained from two different brands of
mobile phones. We present a discussion on the findings in Section 6 and conclude the
research work in Section 7.

654

S. Ghayas et al.

Related Work

An icon is a picture object that represents objects, concept or functionality [7]. Before
interpreting a new icon, we need to understand the relationship between that item and
the icons functionality [8]. When an icon is used, it brings many graphical properties
that need to be processed such as the icon visual details and the way it shows
resemblance to a real object.
In the past research work many icon characteristics were found to have an effect on
icon usability. Some of the examples are physical characteristics (e.g. visual detail,
colour, and size), choice of icon object in the association with the intended icon
meaning, and how that object is described (e.g. dots versus calendar) [8]. Researchers
also pointed out various user-related characteristics (such as intelligence, experience,
and culture) and the context in which icon is found as factors that influence icon
usability [5].
There are a few research studies which have exploited in detail the overall effects
on icon initial usability of few of these characteristics, such as animation [1], and
spacing and size [2]. These studies are very closely related to our work presented in
this paper.
In a research work on icons [9], all the icons characteristics are described.
According to the research, icon concreteness and visual complexity are two distinct
dimensions. The icons used in the experiment include graphics shown for road signs,
electronic symbols, and computer based icons. The icon characteristics discussed are
concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance.
Another study [10] is conducted on desktop email programme which has icons and
labels. Participants perceptions for the ease of use and usefulness of the software are
measured. Results of the study show that participants of the study have better
performance with text labels than icons which are not labelled during initial use of
icons.
In another research work [11], a series of experiments is conducted to investigate
the effects of icon concreteness and visual complexity on tasks involving visual
search and matching icons with labels. Results of the experiment show that concrete
icons have more visual detail than abstract icons.
A few researchers have chosen three icon characteristics which are concreteness,
semantic distance, and labeling in designing their mobile phone interfaces for elderly
users [12]. From the experiments, the researchers had determined that the elderly
users were able in interpreting very few existing mobile phones icons than younger
users, especially in the semantically far icons. It is seen from the research results that
it is very hard for elderly users when identifying objects in an abstract and
semantically far icons.

Experimental Study on Icon Interpretability

Our earlier study findings [26] provided a basis for us to conduct an in-depth study on
the icon characteristics for mobile phone users in a quantitative manner. This is to
investigate the extent to which semantic distance, complexity and familiarity effect
icon usability in various age group users. The objective of the experimental study is to

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

655

determine the recognition rates of icons from two different age groups of users i.e.
younger adults (20 40 years) and older adults (+50 years).
3.1

Familiarity and Recognition

Familiarity refers to the frequency with which images are encountered. It is the degree
to which user identify components in user interface and see how much familiar they
are with interface with that in the past. Other definition of familiarity includes the
experience of users interacting with product [13]. In such a case, familiarity is the
knowledge users have of a product, which is based on their experiences [14].
According to a research work on icons it is found that familiarity is an important
predictor of user performance with icons ([15] and [16]). When applied to interface
design, familiarity minimizes learning time and thus results in enhancing user
satisfaction. On the other hand, the lack of familiarity with interface needs one to
learn the meanings of the icons [17]. Once learning is established, one could
recognize and become familiar with the icons. This is supported by the dual process
theories of recognition memory, which proposes two processes underlying
recognition: recollection process and familiarity [18].
3.2

Methodology

There are several criteria an icon needs to meet before it could be effectively selected.
Those criteria are legibility, distinctiveness, comprehension and the reaction time
[19]. There are also a few issues involved when evaluating icons which are icons
designs and modification [20]. An appropriate testing technique should be carefully
chosen in order to obtain an accurate result.
In general, the method used to evaluate symbols and icons is named
comprehension test or a recognition test [21]. There are many research works
conducted that have used matching tests in order to evaluate graphic symbols ([22]
and [23]). Using matching method, icons are evaluated in relation to other icon
variables to see how suitable a particular icon is. Another method called icon
intuitiveness test, involves an icon without label that could be presented to a
relatively small group of users (e.g. up to five users). The test participants are asked to
interpret what an icon is representing [24]. According to the Organization for
International Standardization (ISO 3864), an icon could be considered as acceptable if
its recognition rate is at least 66 % [25].
In this paper, the recognition rate of the icons is calculated with the help of the
following formula:
Recognition rate (%) = (No. of correct answers/No. of respondents)*100

(1)

In our experimental study the following hypothesis are tested. The hypotheses are
tested for three dependent variables to assess icon interpretability. T wo primary
dependent variables ar e the degree of accuracy in identifying mobile phone icon
object and the degree of accuracy in mobile phone icon meaning. Third dependent
variable, secondary to the other two, is the degree of test participants confidence in
their icons interpretations. The hypotheses are given below:

656

S. Ghayas et al.

Hypothesis 1 (overall icon interpretation): Elderly users encounter more difficulties

than younger adults with mobile phone icons.
Hypothesis 2 (complexity): Elderly users encounter more difficulties than younger
adults with mobile phone icons.
Hypothesis 3 (semantic distance): Elderly users encounter more difficulties than
younger adults with mobile phone icons.
Hypothesis 4 (familiarity): Elderly users encounter more difficulties than younger
adults with mobile phone icons.
3.3

Equipment Used

The mobile phones used were chosen from five different vendors on the basis of its
popularity. We selected a set of icons from the main menu functions of the mobile
phones. It was quite difficult to represent each function by a certain standard number
of icons since the icons differ from each other in their appearance. It is our intention
in this study to find out whether the visual representation offered by a particular icon
does help users to understand the functionality of the icon in question.
3.4

Study Material

We selected 40 icons from different mobile phones that are popular in year 2013.
Mobile phones brands selected were Samsung Galaxy S3 and Samsung Nexus. All
these icons are presented in a list shown in Fig. 1 (sample icons list). We enlarged
most of the icons to minimize effects of icons sizes due to differences in vision
capabilities among the participants. All icons were displayed on the computer screen
when presenting them to the test participants.
A

Fig. 1. Sample Icons List

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

3.5

657

Participants

Two groups of equal numbers were formed, consisting of 30 test participants in total.
The first group consists of those participants ranging from 20 to 49 years old (younger
adults) while the second from 50+ years of age (elderly). Two of the younger adults
(male) and one elderly (female) participants were replaced because from their
expressions it was evident that they were unable to understand the experimental study
tasks. Test participants were invited through departmental advertisement boards. It was
a pre-requisite for all the participants that they should have some experience with usage
of computers, correct eyesight, no color blindness and fluency in English. We were
interested in those who were unfamiliar with the mobile phone icons used in the
experimental study. Before conducting the study a few tests were conducted on to the
test users, such as vision test and verbal fluency. The test mechanism used was Snellen
eye test and the FAS test [3], respectively. The results confirmed that the test users had
normal vision, and meeting verbal fluency levels as required for conducting the study.
3.6

Study Setup

The study was mainly carried out in the HCI-testing lab located at Computer and
Information Sciences Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS while a few of the
sessions were conducted at the participants places. A consent form was given before
conducting the study. All participants were requested to carefully read the consent form
before signing it. The first ten minutes was given to familiarize test users with the
functionalities of existing modern mobile phones (e.g. MMS and SMS options).
In the main study session, each participant was shown the icons list and was given
the questions for each single icon that was presented (40 icons in total). The
participant has to rate each icon with regards to the question prepared. The following
are the sample questions asked from the test participants pertaining to the icons:
1. Identification of the icon objects - (example: What can you see in the icon?)
2. Interpreting the icons functionality - (example: How can we use the icon?)
3. Level of familiarity with the icon - (example: Have you seen this icon
before?)
4. Confidence level while interpreting icons - (example: Are you sure on the
functionality of the icon?)
3.7

Study Measures

Data were collected to test our hypothesis. Each icon tested was given a score. This is
in association with the responses from questions in Section 3.6. The score is obtained
for the following dependent variables.
1.

The degree on how accurate the icon is while identification procedure of

icons is taking place. (values to be used: 0 or 1)
2. The degree of accuracy in interpreting the icons. (values to be used: 0 or 1)
3. The confidence level of the participants in interpreting the icons meaning
(values to be used : scale 1-5; 1= no sure; 5= very much assure )
4. The degree of familiarity with the icons (values from 1-5 )

658

S. Ghayas et al.

In our experimental study, we focused on the initial usability required for mobile
phone interfaces. For this reason, we have as much as possible recruited participants
who were not very familiar with the mobile phone icons presented. Familiarity scores
of the test users with icons in our study were measured in order to assess and control
the effect of the icons on the initial usability measures.

Results and Analysis

We calculated the recognition rate for 40 icons from two different brands of mobile
phones i.e. Samsung Galaxy and Samsung Nexus mobile phones. Only these two
brands of mobile phones were chosen because they are very popular in Malaysia and
we are only interested in exploring and comparing the icon recognition of two
different models. From the main experimental study, 20 Samsung Galaxy phone icons
were selected which is shown in Fig. 2. Keeping in view of the ISO standard as
mentioned in section 4, we awarded two numbers to the icons tested: 1, for a correct
answer rate above 66%, and 0, for rate less than 66%.
Using the ISO guidelines, fifteen (15) icons from Fig. 2 are considered suitable for
mobile phone usage while the rest of the icons achieved low recognition rate. With
the recognition rate of 66%, then the most best suited icons are:
F and P with the recognition rate of 95%
C and R with the recognition rate of 86%
A, B, and N with the recognition rate of 81%
A detailed analysis is presented in Fig. 3, for icons with very low recognition rates
and suggested factors which may be responsible for poor performance. As an
example, icon number I that is meant for Gmail has been misunderstood as normal
messages because of the symbol M on it. In another example, icon number O,
meant for search function has been assumed as Google application due to the g
symbol which is normally used on the Internet.
Similarly, Fig. 4 details out the recognition rates when using Samsung Nexus phone.
Recognition rates are calculated for 20 icons. Out of 20 icons, 11 icons achieved low
recognition rate. Nine (9) icons fulfill the ISO standard requirements which is 66% +.
Fig. 5 presents the analysis for icons (Samsung Nexus) with very low recognition rates
and the suggested factors which may be responsible for poor performance.
Fig. 6 presents the analysis for difference of recognition rates among both age
groups (younger vs. older). From the research findings it is evident that older
participants were less accurate in recognizing and interpreting the icon meanings.
From the icon recognition test, 15 of 20 icons from Samsung galaxy phone
enjoying recognition rate of more than 66 %. 9 out of 20 icons from Samsung nexus
phone enjoying recognition rate of more than 66 %. Comparing both models
recognition rates (i.e. Fig 2 & 4), most of the icons differ in terms of their recognition
rate. It is suggesting that there is no consistency in designing interfaces among same
phones from same vendors. The complexity of graphics minimizes the ease with
which the icon is correctly interpreted. If we use the familiar metaphors, it enhances
the likelihood that an icon will be interpreted correctly.
In the study, our main focus was upon anyone who owns mobile phone regardless
of their experience and professional career. They were not much experienced with the

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

659

technology. The factors that need to be taken into account when conducting this study
are the medium in which the icons were presented and examined and, most
importantly, the age groups involved.

Calculator A

Calendar B

Camera C

Clock D

Add book E

81
Download F

81
Email

86
Gallery H

71
Gmail I

67
Internet J

95
Map

76
Message L

38
Music M

19
Phone N

71
Search

71

67

Settings P

Voice Mail Q

95

86

81

Battery R

10

24

Miss Call S

76

90

Synchronize T

20

Fig. 2. Recognition rates of icons (Samsung Galaxy)

Icons

Reco/rate

Function

38 %

Gallery

19 %

Gmail

24 %

Search

10 %

Voice mail

Expected
reasons for not
understanding

It denotes only
a flower so
most of users
replied picture
Resemble with
email due to
word M
Most users
replied with
google due to
word g on icon
Confusing -no
match with voice
mail

Fig. 3. Icons with low recognition rates (Samsung Galaxy)

660

S. Ghayas et al.

Calculator A

Calendar B

Camera C

Clock D

Add book E

20
Download F

44
Email

48
Gallery H

76
Gmail I

35
Internet J

90
Map

70
Message L

62
Music M

15
Phone N

50
Search

30

67

Settings P

Voice Mail Q

30

25

86

Battery R

10

95
Synchronize T

Miss Call S

72

90

20

Fig. 4. Recognition rates of icons (Samsung Nexus)

Icons

Reco/rate

Function

20 %

Calculator

44 %

Calendar

24 %

Address Book

15 %

Gmail

Expected
reasons for not
understanding

Most users
replied with
equal sign
Sign on the top is
difficult to
identify
Image on the
icon is confusing

Maps

Resemble with
email due to
word M
Most of users
replied with
pictures.

25 %

Music

Users answers
speaker icon

30 %

Settings

10 %

Voice Mail

20 %

Synchronize

30 %

Unfamiliar icon.
Users replied
camera and
speaker icon
Recorder
Icon replied with
refresh icons

Fig. 5. Icons with low recognition (Samsung Nexus)

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

661

Fig. 6. Recognition rates of younger and older adults

Conclusion and Future Work

This paper presents the study about the representation and recognition of the mobile
phone icons. It is investigated that how users of different age group use mobile
phones application interfaces and icons. The recognition rate of the icons is calculated
based on the participants feedback for icons familiarity. The limitations of the
existing mobile phone interfaces in terms of familiarity and recognition are
highlighted. The reasons for the low recognizable icons are highlighted; there is no
consistency in designing interfaces among phones (even from the same vendor). The
complexity of graphics minimizes the ease with which the icon is correctly
interpreted. If the familiar metaphors are used, it enhances the likelihood that an icon
will be interpreted correctly. These findings could contribute in terms of providing
guidelines to improve the mobile phone interfaces.
In the future, the structure of menus and different color combinations employed in
the icons will be studied in detail.

662

S. Ghayas et al.

References
1. Baecker, R., Small, I., Mander, R.: Bringing icons to life. In: Robertson, S.P., Olson, G.M.,
Olson, J.S. (eds.) Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI), NewOrleans, Louisiana, USA, 27 April 2 May, pp. 16. ACM Press,
New York (1991)
2. Lindberg, T., Nasanen, R.: The effect of icon spacing and size on the speed of icon
processing in the human visual system. Displays 24(3), 111120 (2003)
3. Benton, A.L., Hamsher, K.: Multilingual aphasia examination manual. University of Iowa,
Iowa City (1978)
4. Hawthorn, D.: Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interacting with
Computers 12(5), 507528 (2000)
5. Horton, W.: The icon book: visual symbols for computer systems and documentation. John
Wiley&Sons, NewYork (1994)
6. Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE
Trans. Softw. Eng. 25, 557572 (1999)
7. Peirce, C.S.: The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. University Press, Cambridge
(1932)
8. Heim, S.: Icons.The resonant interface: HCI foundations for interaction design, pp. 407
451. Addison Wesley, Boston (2007)
9. McDougall, S.J., Curry, M.B., de Bruijn, O.: Measuring symbol and icon characteristics:
Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance
for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods. Instruments, & Computers 31(3), 487519
(1999)
10. Wiedenbeck, S.: The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an
empirical study of learning and retention. Behaviour and Information Technology 18(2),
6882 (1999)
11. McDougall, S.J., de Brujin, O., Curry, M.B.: Exploring the effects of icon characteristics
on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied 6(4), 291306 (2000)
12. Leung, R., McGrenere, J., Graf, P.: Age-related Differences in the Initial Usability of
mobile Device Icons. Behavior & Information Technology 30(5), 629642 (2009)
13. Alba, J.W., Hutchinson, J.W.: Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer
Research 13(1), 411454 (1987)
14. Luhmann, N.: Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives. In: Gambetta, D.G.
(ed.) Trust, pp. 94107. Basil Blackwell, New York (1988)
15. Isherwood, S.J., McDougall, S.J.P., Curry, M.: Icon Identification in Context: The
changing role of icon characteristics with user experience. Human Factors 49(3), 465476
(2007)
16. Isherwood, S.: Graphics and Semantics: The Relationship between What Is Seen and What
Is Meant in Icon Design. In: Harris, D. (ed.) EPCE 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5639, pp.
197205. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
17. Galitz, W.G.: The Essential Guide to User Interface Design:An Introduction to GUI
Design Principles and Techniques. Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis (2007)
18. Gardiner, J.M.: Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory & Cognition 16,
309318 (1988)
19. Dewar, R.: Design and evaluation of public information symbols. In: Zwaga, H.J.G.,
Boersema, T., Hoonhout, H.C.M. (eds.) Visual Information for Everyday Use: Design and
Research Perspectives, pp. 285304. Taylor & Francis, London (1999)

The Effects of Icon Characteristics on Users Perception

663

20. Blankenberger, S., Hainj, K.: Effects of icon design on human-computer interaction. Int.J.
Man-Machine Studies 35, 363377 (1991)
21. Howell, W., Fuchs, A.: Population stereotypy in code design. Organisational Behavior in
Human Performance 3, 310339 (1968)
22. Heard, E.: A symbol study-1972, Paper No 740304. Society of Automotive Engineers,
New York (1974)
23. Easterby, R.S., Zwaga, H.: Information design. The design and evaluation of signs and
printed material, pp. 277297. J. Wiley & Sons, New York (1984)
24. Nielsen, J., Sano, D.: SunWeb: User Interface Design for Sun Microsystems Internal
Web. In: Proc. 2nd World Wide eb Conf.: Mosaic and the Web, Chicago, IL, pp. 547557
(1994)
25. Piamonte, D.P.T., Abeysekera, J.D.A., Ohlsson, K.: Understanding small graphical
symbols: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 27(6), 399
404 (2000)
26. Ghayas, S., Sulaiman, S., Jafaar, J., Khan, M.: Mobile Phone Icons Recognition: a
comparative study. In: ICT-2013, Singapore (2013)
27. Jacko, J.A., et al.: Macular degeneration and visualicon use: deriving guidelines for
improvedaccess. Universal Access in the Information Society 1(3), 197206 (2002)
28. Moor, K.A., Connelly, K.H., Rogers, Y.: A comparative study of elderly, younger, and
chronically ill novice PDA users. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Technical Report
TR 595 (2004)
29. Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How older adults meet complexity: aging effects on the usability of
different mobile phones. Behavior& Information Technology 24(5), 375389 (2005)