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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    [KDE Usability] Bad Studies Are Worse: About the Recent Results on Detail in Icon Design
From:       mutlu_inek <mutlu_inek () yahoo ! de>
Date:       2013-01-10 10:22:10
Message-ID: 1357813330.65449.YahooMailNeo () web28803 ! mail ! ir2 ! yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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 re=
sults of a highly flawed methodology. Mind that I am not a statistician, bu=
t 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 ca=
tegory 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 th=
e 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 s=
imilar) 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 mo=
re.

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-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]