Usability problems in word processing applications

concept. As a result, people can fail to comprehend the meaning of various kinds of symbolic forms (e.g., Leonard, Otani & Wogalter, 1999; Mehlenbacher, Duffy, & Palmer, 1989; Schwalm, Shaviv, & Goldschmidt, 2000). By extension to the computer interface, if users cannot identify or recognize the associated meaning of icons in a toolbar, then the interface is not as useful as it might otherwise be (Luximon, Ghambaryan, & Mehrabyan, 2003). A potential way to raise icon understanding is to add textual definitions to the icons so that the symbol and textual definition are shown together. In other words, instead of the usual icons-only toolbar, the toolbar would contain words or abbreviations in addition to the icons. Indeed, some computer programs give descriptor words for icons in different ways. One method is to hover over the icon (tool tip), which after a short delay, textual descriptors are displayed in an adjacent area. Other programs give icon definitions using the hovering method but deliver the text descriptors at a different designated (constant) location on the screen. With both of these methods, each icon must be hovered over individually before its definition is shown and the process requires more time and some effort compared to a method in which the definitions always appear with the icons. Thus a potentially better method of displaying toolbar choices would be to have the descriptive text always present with the icons on the tool bar. One purpose of the present study was to evaluate people's judgments regarding having icons and textual descriptors in word processing toolbars. Over the years, the number of features provided in word processing programs has increased, and consequently, the number of potential icons has increased. While the available space for icons has increased over the years due to the availability of larger screens, the amount of screen space allocated for toolbar icons will to some extent limit the area for the main document being worked on. The point here is that large areas used for toolbars and icons could adversely affect word processing performance because parts of the document are partially obscured (or a reduced, less legible document is used). Thus it is possible that combining icons with textual descriptions would not be desirable due usurpation of valuable screen space for the document itself. The present study also examined people's beliefs about other word processor features beyond the toolbar. The aspects examined were based partly on the items used in the research of Levine and Wogalter (2000). They found that people strongly disliked certain features of word processing applications. In the present study, some of the aspects identified by Levine and Wogalter (2000) were examined. The categories of problem features examined concerned formatting, on-line help, and automation. These aspects were focused upon because participants in the earlier study indicated that some functions were needlessly complex, not obvious to use, and that turning off functions was difficult and that default automation was frequently disliked. Thus, as a follow-up to earlier Levine and Wogalter (2000) study, participants were asked which features gave them difficulty in using word processors. These data were collected to determine if there were consistently voiced problems. Thus one purpose of this research was to examine whether participants would prefer textual descriptions added to tool bars.