[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-artists
Subject:    Re: [kde-artists] Bad Studies Are Worse: About the Recent Results on Detail in Icon Design
From:       Nuno Pinheiro <nuno () oxygen-icons ! org>
Date:       2013-01-11 11:17:50
Message-ID: 11810168.XfIeGPKtbY () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

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 rul=
le 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, comple=
x =

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 allwy=
as =

predict the results, this results come as no surprise at all, and unfurtuna=
tly =

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 hav=
e =

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 Bj=F6rn 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 actio=
ns
> 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 t=
he
> spell-related icons due to the inherent ambiguity. Concluding that this h=
as
> to do with the level of detail (which in my opinion is very similar) is n=
ot
> 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
> =

> _________________________________________________________________________=
___
> __ kde-artists@kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artis=
ts
___________________________________________________________________________=
___
kde-artists@kde.org |  https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]