Benbasat, I., & Todd, P. (1993). An experimental investigation of interface design alternatives: icon vs. text and direct manipulation vs. menus. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(1), 369-402.
Bewley, W., Roberts, T. L., Schroit, D., & Verplank, W. L. (1983). Human factors testing in the design of Xerox's 8010 "Star" office workstation. CHI '83 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 72-77). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Boling, E., King, K., Avers, D., Hsu, Y., Lee, J. & Frick, T. (1997). Navigating backward: Concrete vs. abstract representation in hypertext navigation buttons. Manuscript accepted for publication, Canadian Journal of Educational Communications. IIRG! study showing fewer errors in backward navigation to specific locations in simulated hypertext when the navigation button displays a miniature representation of the location than when the button displays an abstract sumbol (arrow).
Boling, E., Beriswill, J., Xaver, R., Hebb, C., & Frick, T. (1997). Text labels for hypermedia navigation buttons. Manuscript accepted for publication, International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4). IIRG! study showing fewer errors in identifying standard Hypercard navigation buttons with text labels only or text labels and visual symbols, compared to identification of navigation buttons showing visual symbols only.
Brems, D., & Witten, W. (1987). Learning and preference for icon-based interface. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society; 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 125-129). Santa Monica, California: The Society.
Brugger, C. (1990). Advances in the international standardization of public information symbols. Information Design Journal, 6(1), 79-88.
Chambers, S., Alexander, J., Howard, Andre, T., O'Boyle, M., Eastman, V., & Motoyama, T. (1992). Symbol and word effectiveness for conveying photocopier functions in experienced photocopier users. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 1203-1215.
Easterby, R. S. (1970). The perception of symbols for machine displays. Ergonomics, 13(1), 149-158.Influential treatise on the components of symbol signs. Widely cited and used as the basis for the IRG approach to perceptibility testing. (thanks to Bob Kampur at IBM, Boca Raton)
Easterby, R. S., & Graydon, I.R. (1981a). Evaluation of public information symbols, ISO tests: 1979/80 series, part I: appropriateness ranking tests. (AP Report 99). Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston.
Easterby, R. S., & Graydon, I.R. (1981b). Evaluation of public information symbols, ISO tests: 1979/80 series, part II: comprehension/recognition tests. (AP Report 100). Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston.
Edigo, C. & Patterson, J. (1988). Pictures and category labels as navigational aids for catalog browsing. Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '88 Conference Proceedings (pp. 127-132). NewYork: Association for Computing Machinery.
Geiselman, R., Landee, B. & Christen, F. (1982). Perceptual discriminability as a basis for selecting graphic symbols. Human Factors, 24(3), 329-337.
Gittens, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543.
Guastello, S., Traut, M., & Korienek, G. (1989). Verbal versus pictorial representations of objects in a human-computer interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31(1), 99-120.
Kacmar, C., & Carey, J. (1991). Assesing the usability of icons in user interfaces. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(6), 443-457.
King, K., Boling, E., Annelli, J., Bray, M. & Frick, T. (1996). Relative perceptibility of Hypercard buttons using pictorial symbols and text labels. Journal of Educational Computing, 14(1), 67-81. IIRG! study showing fewer errors in identifying standard Hypercard navigation buttons with text labels only or text labels and visual symbols, compared to identification of navigation buttons showing visual symbols only.Krull, R. (1988). If icon, why can't you? In Doheny-Farina, S. (Ed.), Effective documentation: what we have learned from research. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Lindgaard, G., Chessari, J., & Ihsen, E. (1987). Icons in telecommunications: what makes pictorial information comprehensible to the user? Australian Telecommuncation Research, 21(2), 17-29.
Mackie, A. M. (1966). National survey of the knowledge of the new traffic signs. (Report No. 51). Harmondsworth, England: Road research Laboratory.Interesting story of the discovery that a symbol set created by expert designers did not communicate to its intended audience in the way that the experts expected it would.
Magyar, R. (1990). Assessing icon appropriateness and icon discriminability with a paired-comparison testing procedure.Proceedings of the Human factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1204-1208). Santa Monica, California: The Society.
McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (1993). Hypertext: a psychological perspective. New York: Ellis Horwood.
Pejtersen, A., & Goodstein, L. P. (1988). Beyond the desktop metaphor: information retrieval with an icon-based interface. Visualization in Human-Computer Interaction: 7th Interdisciplinary Workshop on Informatics and Psychology (pp. 149-182). Scharding, Austria: Springer-Verlag.
Rogers, Y. (1989). Icons at the interface: their usefulness. Interacting with Computers, 1(1), 105-117.
Rogers, Y., & Oborne, D.J. (1987). Pictorial communication of abstract verbs in relation to human-computer interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 99-112.
Rohr, G., & Keppel, E. (1984). Iconic interfaces: where to use and how to construct? Human factors in Organizational Design and Management: Proceedings of First Symposium (pp. 269-275). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Salasoo, A. (1990). Towards usable icon sets: a case study from telecommunications engineering. Proceedings of the Human factors Society 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 203-207). Santa Monica, California: The Society.
Stammers, R. B., & Hoffman, J. (1991). Transfer between icon sets and ratings of icon concreteness and appropriateness. Proceedings of the Human factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 354-358). Santa Monica, California: The Society.
|[ IIRG! ]||Articles||Research||Links||References|
last update 25 August 97 ... questions and suggestions to
Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
URL = http://www.indiana.edu/~iirg/REFERENCES/iconbib.html