HI 5354 – Cognitive Engineering Icons as Cognitive Affordances in Human-Computer Interaction in the Healthcare Environment: A Literature Review Ethan Killgore HI 5354 – Cognitive Engineering The School of Biomedical Informatics |The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Introduction Icons are pictographic symbols used to communicate information, both as visual language and in the context of human-computer interaction (HCI) [1]. In HCI, the information communicated may be objects, processes, data, or the attributes and combinations thereof [1]. Users of HCI see an icon, then interact with it based on their understanding of what it represents to achieve some desired action within a system. In this sense, an icon acts as an affordance, which is something offered or afforded by an environment for the user as an opportunity for action [2]. It’s also been suggested that icons are meaningless without context, as noted by Horton below: [3] In the context of acting as an affordance, icons have a certain amount of universal recognition not present with text, thus affording the user opportunities not present in a text-based interface alone. [4] Studies have also shown that training time can improve users’ comprehension and correct use of icons in HCI, though that collective metaphors and unified representation of the icons’ intended function can be just as impactful as training [5]. Also, constrained interactions, whether physical or arbitrary, produce both affordances and conventions, and that consistent interactions can become as effortless as naturally occurring affordances [6]. Most interactions must go through some degree of initial learning, but experience with similar technologies allows users to optimize the use of long-term memory structures to support less cognitive load on working memory [6]. Essentially, the most effective way to help a user get from intention to action happens with effective affordance design, particularly cues from icons [7]. Problem Results Conclusions Careful consideration should be given to the approach to icon design or selection in any given HCI system. Particular attention should be paid to the understanding of the intended users’ workflow(s), associated metaphors, and those affordances that yield the greatest degree of efficiency and satisfaction. Despite training and icon design methodology and sophistication, many users still have difficulty consistently recognizing icon meaning and effectively utilizing affordances of icons in human-computer interaction. Here I propose to evaluate the literature pertaining to the concept of icons as cognitive affordances in HCI systems. I’m specifically interested in: Use of metaphor in design and icon selection. Training and user experience. Effects on cognitive load and working memory. 1. Use of metaphor in design and icon selection (continued) While use of metaphor to map real-world objects to system actions has been a long-established practice [1], this can be confounded when same or similar metaphors are used in different contexts or functions in the same or parallel systems [5]. 2. Training and user experience Greater agreement exists among domain and non-domain experts on basic graphical elements and concept grouping when designing icons from the bottom-up [8]. Experienced users may not experience as many cognitive affordance issues relating to icon selection and response time [7]. Relating to errors beyond normal system actions, some principles of affordance-guided problem solving can help determine if an affordance-related failure (i.e.: sensory, physical, or cognitive) contributed to the problem [7]. Participatory design processes between intended system users and designers produces more HCI interaction outcomes and user interest [4]. 3. Effects on cognitive load and working memory Semantic difference is significant for initial understanding as users link understanding of new icons to intended functions [4]. Consistent stimulus response and HCI designs that capitalize on this allow greater positive transfer between systems and increase the likelihood that affordance potential can be utilized to increase automatized processing and decrease load on working memory [6]. References 1 – Gittins, D. (1986). Icon-based human-computer interaction. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 24, 519-543. 2 – Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 3 – Horton, W. (1994). The Icon Book. New York: John Wiley. 4 – Salman, Y. B. (2012). Icon and user interface design for emergency medical information systems: A case study. Int. J. Med. Inform., 81, 29-35. 5 - Goonetilleke, R., et al. (2001). Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 55, 741-760. 6 – Still, Jeremiah D., et al. (2013). Cognitively describing and designing affordances. Design Studies, 34, 285-301. 7 – Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behav. & Inform. Technol., 22, 315-338. 8 – Payne, P. R. O., et al. (2005). Quantifying visual similarity in Clinical Iconic Graphics. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assn., 12, 338-345. Methods Reviewed UTH Library OneSearch and ScienceDirect for articles pertaining to ‘icon’, ‘human computer interaction’, ‘affordance’, ‘usability’, and ‘user experience’. I reviewed 23 articles, 8 of which were pertinent to the topic and are referenced herein. Results Use of metaphor in design and icon selection Recent research has suggested a more effective semantic link between objects and function, such as below [5]: Acknowledgements Thanks to Dr. Amy Franklin, PhD, UT Houston SBMI for her timely and thoughtful feedback. Please contact the author via email: Ethan.A.Killgore@uth.tmc.edu