ArticlePloS one2024
The effects of icon design features on user perception and preference: A case study of icons for Covid-19.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Whether Icons and Visual Elements Help or Hinder Understanding of Key Information for Research Studies: Results From a Randomized Trial.Health literacy research and practice · 2026Trial
- An Age-Adapted Co-Design Methodology for Community Health Research Involving Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A dataset of aesthetic appeal ratings for pictograms with and without verbal labels.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Community education program on autism spectrum disorder: a case study of an ecosystem intervention involving family, school, NGO, and community stakeholders.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Correction: The effects of icon design features on user perception and preference: A case study of icons for Covid-19.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate users' perceptions and preferences on the design features of the COVID-19 prevention promotion icon from the perspective of users' aesthetic and perceptual needs. In this study, 120 officially published icons from 24 countries and regions were collected from online platforms for ranking tests, and then the top-ranked icons were subjectively rated by the semantic differential method. By evaluating the quality of users' perceptions of multiple semantic dimensions of icons, we extracted the perceptual semantic words that users valued as the main icon design features. Spearmen correlations were applied to derive possible correlations between user rankings and semantic scales, and a Friedman test was also conducted to determine the true differences in user perceptions and preferences for different styles of icons. Factor analysis was conducted to extract six perceptual words that influence the design features of the COVID-19 prevention promotion icon. The methodology adopted in this study facilitated the screening of design features related to icon effectiveness, and the findings show that "Interesting," "Simple," "Familiar, "Recognizable," "Concrete," and "Close(semantic distance)" are the key features that influence users' perception and preference of COVID-19 icon design. The results of this study can be used as the basis for designing and improving publicity icons for preventive measures in COVID-19, and the methods adopted in this study can be applied to evaluate other types of icon design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.