an article by Carlos Nakamura and Qing Zeng-Treitler (Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, USA) published in International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Volume 70 Issue 8 (August 2012)
Abstract
Predicting whether the intended audience will be able to recognize the meaning of an icon or pictograph is not an easy task. Many icon recognition studies have been conducted in the past. However, their findings cannot be generalized to other icons that were not included in the study, which, we argue, is their main limitation.
In this paper, we propose a comprehensive taxonomy of icons that is intended to enable the generalization of the findings of recognition studies. To accomplish this, we analysed a sample of more than eight hundred icons according to three axes: lexical category, semantic category, and representation strategy. Three basic representation strategies were identified: visual similarity; semantic association; and arbitrary convention. These representation strategies are in agreement with the strategies identified in previous taxonomies.
However, a greater number of subcategories of these strategies were identified. Our results also indicate that the lexical and semantic attributes of a concept influence the choice of representation strategy.
Highlights
► Icons can be created by visual similarity, semantic association, and by convention.
► Only concrete concepts (e.g., “car”) can be represented by visual similarity.
► Abstract concepts (e.g., “pain”) can only be represented by semantic association.
► Semantic association is the most diverse and the most used representation strategy.
► Icons created by convention are only understood if the reader already knows the code.
Hazel’s comment:
How many careers libraries are still using the icons developed for CRCI?
Do the users understand them (do you understand them?
Actually I think the question should have been “Does anyone have a careers library in these days of austerity?)
Showing posts with label taxonomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxonomy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Monday, 12 March 2012
Applied taxonomy frameworks
an article by Alan Flett (Smartlogic) and Judi Vernau (Metataxis) published in Business Information Review Volume 28 Number 4 (December 2011)
Abstract
Taxonomy is one of the most used and abused frameworks in all of Knowledge and Information Management. The attraction of taxonomies is obvious: ostensibly they have an everyday simplicity that is familiar to all – they help organize similar things into simple and accessible structures. However, their actual application often leaves a lot to be desired.
There are two main issues that crop up again and again in the application of Taxonomy frameworks.
First, Taxonomy often gets confused with arrangement; that is, classification and interpretation get confused with placement and presentation.
Second, there is often no practicable and principled mechanism for applying the taxonomy to the content.
This article addresses both these issues and maintains that, to be successful, Taxonomy should be held in clear distinction to arrangement and that it needs to be sustainably, consistently, and coherently applied to content.
Abstract
Taxonomy is one of the most used and abused frameworks in all of Knowledge and Information Management. The attraction of taxonomies is obvious: ostensibly they have an everyday simplicity that is familiar to all – they help organize similar things into simple and accessible structures. However, their actual application often leaves a lot to be desired.
There are two main issues that crop up again and again in the application of Taxonomy frameworks.
First, Taxonomy often gets confused with arrangement; that is, classification and interpretation get confused with placement and presentation.
Second, there is often no practicable and principled mechanism for applying the taxonomy to the content.
This article addresses both these issues and maintains that, to be successful, Taxonomy should be held in clear distinction to arrangement and that it needs to be sustainably, consistently, and coherently applied to content.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Taxonomy of technological risks: when things fail badly
from BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow
A Taxonomy of Operational Cyber Security Risks" by CMUrsquo;s James J Cebula and Lisa R Young is a year-old paper that attempts to classify all the ways that technology go wrong, and the vulnerabilities than ensue. Fascinating reading, a great primer on technology and security, and as a bonus, there’s a half-dozen science fiction/technothriller plots lurking on every page.
This report presents a taxonomy of operational cyber security risks that attempts to identify and organize the sources of operational cyber security risk into four classes:
(1) actions of people,
(2) systems and technology failures,
(3) failed internal processes, and
(4) external events.
Each class is broken down into subclasses, which are described by their elements. This report discusses the harmonization of the taxonomy with other risk and security activities, particularly those described by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publications, and the CERT Operationally Critical Threat, Asset, and Vulnerability Evaluation (OCTAVE) method.
A Taxonomy of Operational Cyber Security Risks (PDF 47pp)
A Taxonomy of Operational Cyber Security Risks" by CMUrsquo;s James J Cebula and Lisa R Young is a year-old paper that attempts to classify all the ways that technology go wrong, and the vulnerabilities than ensue. Fascinating reading, a great primer on technology and security, and as a bonus, there’s a half-dozen science fiction/technothriller plots lurking on every page.
This report presents a taxonomy of operational cyber security risks that attempts to identify and organize the sources of operational cyber security risk into four classes:
(1) actions of people,
(2) systems and technology failures,
(3) failed internal processes, and
(4) external events.
Each class is broken down into subclasses, which are described by their elements. This report discusses the harmonization of the taxonomy with other risk and security activities, particularly those described by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publications, and the CERT Operationally Critical Threat, Asset, and Vulnerability Evaluation (OCTAVE) method.
A Taxonomy of Operational Cyber Security Risks (PDF 47pp)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
