(Mis)understanding: Icon Comprehension in Different Cultural Contexts
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTIcons are frequently used in contexts where comprehension needs to be consistent across cultural and linguistic barriers. This paper reports on a study comparing the comprehension of 54 universal medical icons in rural Tanzania and the United States of America. It finds that most of the icons were not understood cross-culturally. The premise of the study was that this misunderstanding might have two causes: cultural distinctions and lack of knowledge. To test the premise we studied icon comprehension by those in two different cultures with two levels of medical knowledge: 'standard' and 'advanced'. The results show that most (33 of 47) poorly comprehended icons failed due to lack of medical knowledge or unfamiliarity with technology, while few (5 of 47) poorly comprehended icons failed due to cultural differences. Analysis of icons that failed due to cultural differences suggests that the primary drivers of cultural misunderstanding were the use of culturally sensitive metaphor and the incorporation of learned signs (non-representational symbols such as words) in icon design. Awareness of these causes of poor comprehension across cultures might help designers design effective universal icons by incorporating into the design process research methods that identify disparities of specific knowledge in the target people group and by avoiding use of metaphor and learned signs. These findings empower calls for cultural sensitivity in visual communication with guidance for implementation.KEY WORDSicon; pictogram; medical communication; culture; comprehensionINTRODUCTIONIcons are often relied upon to communicate where words fail. They race through Olympic venues, plod through international airports, and glow on smartphones. Icons are useful in these international contexts because they visually represent what they symbolize, bypassing language by connecting with our shared visual experience of the world. Icons can cross cultures and eras. Hieroglyphs in ancient Egyptian tombs still speak without words across accumulated millennia of changing technology and culture.Icons still speak today, but often unclearly. Recent studies show that contemporary icons may not be as widely understood as we assume. Only 60% of people can correctly identify the tire inflation 'idiot light' icon in cars. (Woodyard, 2010) There are several complicating factors to communicating well with icons. Image-based icons must be designed to connect with familiar objects. Poor drawing, or not drawing an object from the commonly seen point of view such as a tire in Woodyard's example, is one factor that can result in misunderstanding. Another factor is disparity in familiarity with various technologies across the globe. For example, Magnetic Resonance Imaging now seems to be available everywhere in the USA but may not be available anywhere in some African countries. Someone who does not know that an MRI exists will not understand an icon of an MRI, no matter how well drawn. As James Mangan said, correct interpretation of these signs requires exposure to what they signify. (Mangan, 1978, p. 256) A further factor is the use of metaphor to communicate which may draw upon cultural norms like using children's toys to communicate a children's hospital ward. Such cultural norms differ. What is a toy in one culture may not be a toy in another, leading to failure to understand both the metaphor and the icon based on it.Some studies verify that cultural differences may impact the ability to correctly comprehend medication instruction icons in Africa, (Knapp, Raynor, Jebar, & Price, 2005), while others find little or no difference across culture but instead find greater difference in comprehension due to educational level. (Kassam, Vaillancourt, & Collins, 2004) The Kassam article, which tested three language people groups living in Canada, exposes the issue of what specific features such as language and praxis should define one cultural from another. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle