Hi Björn, > Sorry for stepping in here. The results are just what it says in the > post. Yes, we did an analysis of data that was not gathered for this > kind of analysis in the first place. As it cannot be used to proof any > hypothesis (no statistical study can anyhow - read Popper on this > topic) - the data cannot falsify the hypothesis that more detail is > worse than less detail - but it can falsify the hypothesis that there > is no difference between more and less detail icons in this particular > setting. This is a value.
So, first of all, the hypothesis makes some sense to me, logically. However, the problem here is that the categorisation seems pretty random: "low-detail" icons have small text on them, have delicate lines, contain many elements, etc. You don't seem to have published how you categorised the icon, either (maybe I haven't looked hard enough). If you look at the comments below the post, I am clearly not the first to have noticed. This is, btw, not the only concern about the validity of the more-is-worse analysis. So, all the study proves is that some icons are more readable than others – which is useful in itself of course. > Esp. as Heiko did not cite the study to proof anything. Sorry about overreacting there. Astron. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
