Research for Visual Indicators

Hi everyone,

On the call yesterday one of the things needed for Visual Indicators to progress is a solid research basis for the requirement. This is my overview of where I think we are with that need.

To be clear about what we need:


  *   If we have a general "interaction controls should have salience", we need to define what that means with lots of examples for different types of control. (Big project in itself.)

  *   If it is restricted to buttons/links, that helps, but we still need to define salience in terms that work across different contexts.

  *   If it takes the approach of listing design attributes (e.g. font, border, background, spacing etc) then we need to know what a minimum difference is, AND whether these attributes are equivalent.

Ideally it would say something like "A border of X contrast improved visual acquisition by Y%", or something we could take that sort of conclusion from.

The ultimate test is that we test several example sites, and the controls which fail are the ones which cause issues for people in practice (and almost as important, it does not catch controls which are not an issue).

David Fazio kindly provide an example [1], and there are several in the document from Lisa & the COGA TF [2].

This is the list of things I looked through, and my quick conclusion from each whilst hunting for suitable findings:


  *   https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/
Gives background to flat design & the (usability) issues, links to the next article.

  *   https://www.nngroup.com/articles/clickable-elements/
This is looking at the right level of attribute (e.g. colour, position). Highlights that location can be as useful as other indicators, and whether other items are available also has an impact (making this task harder). Arrow icons were not thought to be as useful. Not referencing research (that I could see), experience based.

  *   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698902000160
Tested target acquisition performance by making 1 of 12 targets on screen 'salient', with either contrast change, movement or an extra ring around the target. It showed (I think) that more change = quicker acquisition.
This article linked to quite a few related research papers giving me more to look at, but mostly from the '90s.

  *   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210001594
Some things automatically stand out, some we can be attentive to. Deals with real life stimuli rather than interface design.

  *   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141938203000350
Spacing didn't affect search times for finding an icon within a set, but small icons were harder to identify and took longer to find.

I really struggled to spot anything that would support a visual indicators SC, including from scanning the results of research listings.

However, I'm not a scholar and there are probably better terms to use when searching. If anyone knows some better sources for this information now would be the time to send them in...

Kind regards,

-Alastair
1] https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0027719840&origin=inward&txGid=83d4899571123207f27b0d9343ae40e2

2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U_NVxB-eIljhYSNcW0A7_2aHt9GwNfLnRF5n_stHrbc/edit

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT

Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411