Re: [kde-artists] Bad Studies Are Worse: About the Recent Results on Detail in Icon Design

Nuno Pinheiro <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.kde.devel.accessibility,gmane.comp.kde.artists,gmane.comp.kde.usability
Message-ID <[email protected]>
A Quinta, 10 de Janeiro de 2013 10:22:10 mutlu_inek escreveu:

Bfffff dont worry, there is nothing wrong with the article. as  general rulle I 
try to keep the icons as simple as possible, and I have no doubt that the 
results are merly an indication of somthing I knew and strugle with, complex 
metafores are hard to explain in icons... 
Don't take it the wrong way but I have been doing icons for somtime now and 
have a bit of experirnce on them, exemple in the past studies I could allwyas 
predict the results, this results come as no surprise at all, and unfurtunatly 
wille in some cases I coud do better in most cases they are just the result of 
complex action being explosed via iconographie.

So dont worry im not mindlesly loking at this results. and historicly I have 
been very good at ignoring some "user feedback" aka in oxygen save icon is 
still a floppy disk.  

 


> Dear Icon Designers, Usability People and Survey Makers,
> 
> I am cross-posting a response I left on the blog entry "More is worse:
> About Detail in Icons" posted by Björn Balazs on User Promt and
> aggregated on Planet KDE. It can be found here:
> http://user-prompt.com/more-is-worse-about-detail-in-icons/
> 
> I do not intend to deride the work that has
> gone into this study, but I fear that the community may be misled by the
> results of a highly flawed methodology. Mind that I am not a statistician,
> but I know enough about this topic that I can spot some major flaws in
> no-time. Please find a part of the text (with less typos) below.
> 
> 
> """
> 
> This
> study is so flawed  that the value of its results is nonexistent. Taking it
> seriously may even be harmful.
> 
> 
> First of all, the distinction between low-detail
> and high-detail icons is highly inconsistent. Second, those in the first
> category point to rather well-known, well-entrenched and often-used actions
> the icons of which many will easily recognize, while the latter are less
> often used. Third, the latter category also includes icons such as the
> "auto-spellcheck" and the "spelling and grammar" icons that are very
> close to one another both in meaning and in iconic representation. Thus, an
> allegedly low-detail icons like "save" will score higher than either of the
> spell-related icons due to the inherent ambiguity. Concluding that this has
> to do with the level of detail (which in my opinion is very similar) is not
> the way to go.
> 
> Instead,
>  you would need two sets of icons that represent the same actions, one
> with more and one with less detail. Both icon sets would have to be
> equally known or unknown to your audience. A statistician might tell you
> more.
> 
> I do appreciate your work, but please
> don't encourage the F/OSS community to invest resources into design that
>  are misdirected based on well-meaning but simply wrongly executed
> studies.
> 
> Thank you.
> """
> 
> All the best,
> 
> mutlu
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> __ [email protected] |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.