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
Published online: 22 May 2015
Biederman, I., & Ju, G.
Cairney, P., & Sless, D.
Chuang, Y.L., & Chen, L.L.
Glennen, S.L., & DeCoste, D.C.
Hsu, T.F., & Lin, P.C.
(1997) The recognition and message reception of visual symbol (Unpublished master's thesis). National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
(2001) A study on the formation recognition of “certification mark” in Taiwan area (Unpublished master's thesis).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, R., & Hsu, C.C.