Article published In:
Information Design JournalVol. 21:1 (2014) ► pp.5–17
Classification analysis on proximate contexts from graphic symbols
The AIGA system
Graphic symbol recognition is influenced by proximate context. Hence, this study used card sorting to classify the proximate context and conducted a cluster analysis to compare the differences in clustering processes between participants divided into “design group” and “general group.” Results showed that a high commonality in classifying proximate context existed between the design group and general group. Proximate contexts were classified into seven categories: “icon,” “sign,” “direction,” “direction + icon,” “human + icon,” “sign + icon,” and “icon + icon.” Additionally, three types of clustering differences were found: agreement difference, assignment difference, and sub-cluster difference.
Keywords: proximate context, graphic symbol, classification analysis
References (15)
Biederman, I., & Ju, G. (1998). Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 201, 38–64. 
Cairney, P., & Sless, D. (1982). Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13 (2), 91–97.
Chuang, Y.L., & Chen, L.L. (2003). Computer Aided Kansei Engineering with XML Technology (Tech. Rep. No. NSC 92-2411H011007). Taipei: Taiwan National Science Council.
Glennen, S.L., & DeCoste, D.C. (1997). The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego: Singular Pub.
Horton, W. (1994). The icon book. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hsu, T.F., & Lin, P.C. (2008). Recognition efficiency and pattern of graphical symbols based on information loads and cognitive styles: A study of AIGA symbols. Journal of Design Science, 11(1), 87–105.
Huang, J.Y. (2000). Multivariate Statistical Analysis: an introduction. Taipei: China's economy Enterprise Institute.
Kinross, R. (1981). On the influence of Isotype. Information Design Journal, 2 (2), 122–130.
Liao, C.R. (1997). The recognition and message reception of visual symbol (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Su, T.T. (2001). A study on the formation recognition of “certification mark” in Taiwan area (Unpublished master's thesis). National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Tullis, T., & Wood, L. E. (2004, June). How Many Users Are Enough for a Card-Sorting Study? Poster presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Usability Professionals Association
, Minneapolis, MN.
Wang, M.J. (1995). Probing into the land of visual context. Artist Magazine, 241, 460.
Wang, R., & Hsu, C.C. (2006). Study of the design operation of graphic simplification. The Design Journal, 10 (3), 54–73.
Zender, M. (2006). Advancing icon design for global non verbal communication: or What does the word Bow mean? Visible Language, 40 (2), 177–206.
Zwaga, H.J.G., & Easterby, R.S. (1984). Developing effective symbols for public information. In R.S. Easterby & H.J.G. Zwaga (Eds.), Information Design: The Design and Evaluation of Signs and Printed Material (pp. 277–297). New York: John Wiley & Sons.