RESEARCH ARTICLE


Comparison of Alternative Representational Formats for Hyperlinks: Pictogram, Labeled-Pictogram, and Text



Miki Namatame1, *, Muneo Kitajima2
1 Tsukuba University of Technology, 4-3-15 Amakubo Tsukuba Ibaraki 305-8520 Japan
2 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 1-1-1 Higashi Tsukuba Ibaraki 305-8566 Japan


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 826
Abstract HTML Views: 1122
PDF Downloads: 166
Total Views/Downloads: 2114
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 387
Abstract HTML Views: 603
PDF Downloads: 132
Total Views/Downloads: 1122



Namatame et al.; Licensee Bentham Open

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Tsukuba University of Technology, 4-3-15 Amakubo Tsukuba Ibaraki 305-8520 Japan; E-mail: miki@a.tsukuba-tech.ac.jp


Abstract

This paper reports an eye-tracking experiment conducted to compare alternative representations of directories typically shown on web pages in search of a best representation for deaf persons. The experiment simulated a directory-based information search task to understand how it is performed when directories are represented in text, labeled-pictograms, or unlabeled-pictograms. Twenty-one deaf and 21 hearing participants were asked to select one of 27 directories represented in one of the three alternative formats for each of 38 queries. The eye movement data were analyzed by the parametric ANOVA to understand how the method of directory search adopted by the hearing group and the deaf group might be different under the influence of the differences in directory representations. The result demonstrated that only in the labeled-pictogram representation, the hearing group and the deaf group performed equally well in terms of the eye movement measures.