Xref: utzoo alt.hypertext:807 comp.cog-eng:1917 comp.graphics:17028 comp.multimedia:274 comp.software-eng:5237
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!Unify.com!raveling
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext,comp.cog-eng,comp.graphics,comp.multimedia,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Images vs. Text
Message-ID: <1991Apr3.124340@Unify.com>
Date: 3 Apr 91 20:43:40 GMT
References: <10292@pitt.UUCP> <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com>
Sender: news@Unify.Com (news admin)
Reply-To: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Distribution: na
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Lines: 32

In article <1991Apr2.180348.19733@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com
(David Elliott) writes:

	[about speed of info transfer for images versus text]

> It depends on the type of information and the space allowed to
display
> the information.
> 
> For example, it's much slower for me to decipher a pallette of icons
> that correspond to a set of operations than it is for me to decipher
a
> text menu in the same space.

	In some current product design I've been incorporating text
	labels IN icons, and think this provides the best of both.

	Probably the biggest problem with icons is that they can be
	ambiguous, not giving new users/viewers a sufficient cue to
	have a good sense of which meaning the REALLY want to confer.
	Adding a bit of text solves this, and provides a natural way
	for people to begin associating the icon with the corresponding
	concept.

	Another advantage is that the image supports the text.  It's
	often possible to use image info to allow using terser text
	than would be needed if using ONLY text.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com