[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-usability
Subject: Re: [KDE Usability] [kde-artists] Bad Studies Are Worse: About the Recent Results on Detail in Icon
From: David Edmundson <david () davidedmundson ! co ! uk>
Date: 2013-01-11 21:14:55
Message-ID: CAGeFrHDdVryHi9rYD-N03bDuCC_CP+1SPR0RH6NUXCnFkwCCfw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
The blog post is merely a tiny tiny summary of the study. Be sure to read
the whole thing before criticising. (There's links in the article)
The author in question here is pretty damn awesome, and an expert in his
field.
Either way, the KDE community doesn't tend to make any knee-jerk reactions
to any blog posts from anyone, so I don't think you need to fear in any
case.
Dave
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, 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
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 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
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
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________=
_
> __ kde-artists@kde.org |
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<p dir="ltr">The blog post is merely a tiny tiny summary of the study. Be sure to read the \
whole thing before criticising. (There's links in the article)</p> <p dir="ltr">The author \
in question here is pretty damn awesome, and an expert in his field. </p> <p dir="ltr">Either \
way, the KDE community doesn't tend to make any knee-jerk reactions to any blog posts from \
anyone, so I don't think you need to fear in any case.</p> <p dir="ltr">Dave<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">A Quinta, 10 de Janeiro de 2013 10:22:10 mutlu_inek escreveu:<br> <br>
Bfffff dont worry, there is nothing wrong with the article. as general rulle I<br>
try to keep the icons as simple as possible, and I have no doubt that the<br>
results are merly an indication of somthing I knew and strugle with, complex<br>
metafores are hard to explain in icons...<br>
Don't take it the wrong way but I have been doing icons for somtime now and<br>
have a bit of experirnce on them, exemple in the past studies I could allwyas<br>
predict the results, this results come as no surprise at all, and unfurtunatly<br>
wille in some cases I coud do better in most cases they are just the result of<br>
complex action being explosed via iconographie.<br>
<br>
So dont worry im not mindlesly loking at this results. and historicly I have<br>
been very good at ignoring some "user feedback" aka in oxygen save icon is<br>
still a floppy disk.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Dear Icon Designers, Usability People and Survey Makers,<br>
><br>
> I am cross-posting a response I left on the blog entry "More is worse:<br>
> About Detail in Icons" posted by Björn Balazs on User Promt and<br>
> aggregated on Planet KDE. It can be found here:<br>
> <a href="http://user-prompt.com/more-is-worse-about-detail-in-icons/" \
target="_blank">http://user-prompt.com/more-is-worse-about-detail-in-icons/</a><br> ><br>
> I do not intend to deride the work that has<br>
> gone into this study, but I fear that the community may be misled by the<br>
> results of a highly flawed methodology. Mind that I am not a statistician,<br>
> but I know enough about this topic that I can spot some major flaws in<br>
> no-time. Please find a part of the text (with less typos) below.<br>
><br>
><br>
> """<br>
><br>
> This<br>
> study is so flawed that the value of its results is nonexistent. Taking it<br>
> seriously may even be harmful.<br>
><br>
><br>
> First of all, the distinction between low-detail<br>
> and high-detail icons is highly inconsistent. Second, those in the first<br>
> category point to rather well-known, well-entrenched and often-used actions<br>
> the icons of which many will easily recognize, while the latter are less<br>
> often used. Third, the latter category also includes icons such as the<br>
> "auto-spellcheck" and the "spelling and grammar" icons that are \
very<br> > close to one another both in meaning and in iconic representation. Thus, an<br>
> allegedly low-detail icons like "save" will score higher than either of the<br>
> spell-related icons due to the inherent ambiguity. Concluding that this has<br>
> to do with the level of detail (which in my opinion is very similar) is not<br>
> the way to go.<br>
><br>
> Instead,<br>
> you would need two sets of icons that represent the same actions, one<br>
> with more and one with less detail. Both icon sets would have to be<br>
> equally known or unknown to your audience. A statistician might tell you<br>
> more.<br>
><br>
> I do appreciate your work, but please<br>
> don't encourage the F/OSS community to invest resources into design that<br>
> are misdirected based on well-meaning but simply wrongly executed<br>
> studies.<br>
><br>
> Thank you.<br>
> """<br>
><br>
> All the best,<br>
><br>
> mutlu<br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________________________<br>
> __ <a href="mailto:kde-artists@kde.org">kde-artists@kde.org</a> | <a \
href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists" \
target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-artists</a><br> \
_______________________________________________<br> kde-usability mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kde-usability@kde.org">kde-usability@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability" \
target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability</a><br> </div>
_______________________________________________
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]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic