The Effect of Viewing Angle on Recognition of Graphics in
Packaging Design
Regina W. Y. Wang*, Pai Yun Tsai**
*National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Graduate Institute of Design No.43, Sec. 4, Jilong Rd.,
Da-an District, Taipei City 106, Taiwan (R.O.C.) wyw@mail.ntust.edu.tw
**National Taiwan University of Art, Department of Visual Communication Design, No.59, Sec. 1, Daguan Rd.,
Banciao City, Taipei County 220, Taiwan (R.O.C.) slu02@ms14.hinet.net
Abstract: The study is trying to discriminate features of graphic design in terms of stylization classified and to
assess the affects of the graphic styles that confront with deficient angles of view. The research emphasizes on three
phases. Firstly, the graphic stylizations in packaging are categorized as the types of illustration that are applied to the
test samples in the experiment. They are: pictorial graphics, rendering graphics and symbol graphics. Secondly,
recognition performance has been estimated for the graphic styled against different angles of view.
rendering graphics are of better performance than symbol graphics.
performances of recognition.
Pictorial and
The larger angles of view have worse
Thirdly, the interaction between view angles and graphic stylization is detected for
the proof of correlation. That the graphic stylization of rendering graphics has been found more effective on
recognizing performance while confronting with larger view angles.
Key words: graphic stylization, view angle, recognizing performance, packaging design
1.
Introduction
A consumer often recognizes product through graphic design on the package. The differences in the
position on shelf that product packages are put on would play a role to which guides or strengthens attention. If
designer is unmindful of packaging graphic which is put on an inferior location, consumers may mistake
perception of product by an inefficient design.
The packaging graphics can be classified as the stylization of illustration.
Illustration of object in the
definition of stylization is in the continuous process from actual object to abstraction, which is simplified step by
step of the lines, forms, volume, scale, color, texture, in which can categorize the presentation of graphics [1].
They are in line with the types of design presented in retailed packaging [2], and the kind of factors influence on
recognition.
It would stimulate the change of eyes’ perception to the image of object that affects on the recognition of
real object. In the large retailing store, the differences of place and shelf on which various commodity packages
are put would force a consumer to take different angles of view when he searches for a commodity.
The angle of
view means the included angle formed by sight line of visual target and middle line of visual plane. The angle of
view would be changed with the “location of display” of visual target and “distance” to visual target.
If a
person’s eyes have an distance to a visual target, the farther the location of visual target to the middle line, the
more the angles of view and the graphics would be changed and cause
compression of form.
On the other hand, the less the distance to middle
line and the smaller of the angle of view, the features of graphics would be
close to real image as front view of object with the least transformation (Fig.
1).
The scope of visual field of human head in horizontal turn to the right
or to the left is of 55 degrees [3] [4].
If you see the visual target in the
right side and left side, you will have to turn the neck joints to right or to
left. When the joint of neck turns left to the extent 55 degrees, the angle of
Fig. 1 The formation of view angle
against the visual target
view would be 55 degrees (Fig. 2).
When a person views an object with
a larger angle of view, the image presented by the object on retina of human eye
would be compressed and transformed [5] that would probable cause deficiency
even an error for recognition, although our mental models of whole objects are
constructed from our experiences with many objects seen from many viewpoints
and in many situations.
At the same time, the mind tunes out characteristics not
relevant to the mental model, and in this way it corrects the stimulus to fit a
perceptual expectancy [6]. For example, when we see a door, we expect it to
open onto a closet or a room.
If we opened it and found a blank wall, we would
be likely to be startled.
After seeing it, though, we understand that such
appearance is possible.
Once again, perception can be characterized as a
process of gambling on probabilities, not possibilities. Form constancy, then, is
Fig. 2 View angles formed by
horizontal turn of human
head
a system of assumptions made about whole objects on the basis of simplest and most probable forms.
It assumes
that the similar situation would affect the performance of recognition in terms of time consuming for perceiving of
something transformed with different graphic styles.
2.0
Such effects are certainly suggested by the investigation.
Methodology
The investigation is decided to carry out a series of objective experiments to study the effect on recognition
of graphics of variation in (a) angle of view and (b) stylization of illustration. The purpose of the experiments is
to detect and discuss the interaction between the conditions of view angle and the styled graphics.
It is to
examine the hypothetic point of view in arguments including whether less angles of view or more detailed graphic
style such as pictorial graphic would be benefit to recognition efficiency.
Estimation of time consumption of
recognition is criteria for the tests.
2.1 Approach to experimental design
•
Stylization of graphics to be tested
The objects take different vegetable images that are presented by line drawing in black regarded as
experimental stimulus and independent variable.
The feature of each style of vegetable image is in the
continuous process of simplifying the lines in depiction from actual object to abstraction.
The quantities of this
independent variable are classified into three categories as “pictorial illustration”, “rendering graphics” and
“symbol graphics”.
•
Angles of view to be tested
The other stimulus designed for independent variable is angle of view.
There are seven values of angles of view caused by horizontal turns of head (Fig.
3).
They are left turn 54 degrees, left turn 36 degrees, left turn 18 degrees, no
turn of head with front view of object, right turn 18 degrees, right turn 36
degrees, and right turn 54 degrees.
•
Test environment and facility
It is felt that this is particularly important if natural responses are to be
given by the subjects, many of whom are regarded as consumers in shopping.
It is emphasized to each viewer that the tests are not test of intelligence or
eyesight, it is, however, the graphic styled that is being tested and not the viewer.
The only pieces of apparatus used are a PC lab top (to display the graphic
samples) and a portable reading lamp (to standardize quantity and position of
illumination).
Graphic samples styled are produced by the software,
“CorelDraw”, version 9.0 produce by Corel Corporation.
scope of 15 x 15 cm.
retailed market survey.
Fig. 3 Visual field in the
horizontal turn of head and
seven experimental angles of
view designed
The design of graphic sample would be within the
It is the average size of the front view of a package surface that has learned from Taiwan
To consider the perception speed measured and the experiment procedure monitored
precisely, they are programmed by the software of “Director”, version 8.0 that is produced by Macromedia Inc.
All samples ready for the test are displayed by LED of ASUS PC lab top which revolution is 1024 x 768.
•
Specification of graphic samples
There are three extents of stylization for vegetable figure elaborated as follows.
a.
Pictorial graphics (hereinafter referred to as “complexity”): they are illustrated according to the figure of
vegetable, paid attention to their features in details and stressed natural turn of shape of vegetables as actual as
possible.
Moreover they are applied different thick and thin line to present texture and three-dimension of
vegetable features (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4
b.
Graphic samples in the stylization of complexity
Rendering graphics (hereinafter referred to as “simplification”): they retain some of distinguishable features
of pictorial illustration, which are however simplified excessive parts of complicated details and replaced them by
smooth lines.
They are applied with the same thickness of stroke to contour lines (Fig. 5). The feature of
rendering graphic is simpler than the one of pictorial.
Fig. 5
c.
Graphic samples in the stylization of simplification
Symbol graphics (hereinafter referred to as “geometry”): they are designed as simple as possible by
geometric line and form analogous to the feature of each vegetable. They maintains the same thickness of stroke
and straightness for the lines in the figure.
Likewise, it uses the lines of circular arc to link on the turn of shape
for the samples of ginger and paper (Fig. 6).
•
They are still tried to retain the nature look of vegetable shape.
Specification of samples in angles of view
Fig. 6
Graphic samples in the stylization of geometry
Supposed there are seven experimental angles of view caused by horizontal turns of head.
According to
those angles of view, the design of samples with horizontal transformation are of 54 degrees left compressed
(hereinafter referred to as “L54”), 36 degrees left compressed (L36), 18 degrees left compressed (L18), no
compressed (LR0), 18 degrees right compressed (R18), 36 degrees right compressed (R36) and 54 degrees right
compressed (R54) (See Fig.7).
L54
Fig. 7
•
L36
L18
LR0
R18
R36
R54
Design of samples with transformation of compression consider of different angles of view
Subjects of viewer
It takes the non-probability for experiment subjects sampling.
The students of National Taiwan University
of Science and Technology and Fu-Hsing Vocational High School have been surveyed.
to 26 and average age was 16.88 (SD=3.43).
The age range is from 16
There are 250 students involved. To avoid uncontrolled internal
variables that would intervene in research validity [7], all subjects are volunteers. Their visions are healthy even
with lens.
•
Interview and test procedures
Each interview takes about 10 minutes and is conducted in the following sequence:
1. Brief verbal description of the purpose of the investigation.
2. Screening of visual acuity, at least up to 0.7 (Landolt Vision Screening Chart) even with lens.
3. Answering of question regarding to age, recorded in by the interviewer.
4. Telling of object name for what they has seen and had perceived from the displayed.
•
Processing and analysis of the Data
The tests of perceiving are timed, and the total times are recorded in the program set up by “Director”.
the purpose of this study, this measure has been called the “recognizing performance”.
For
It is decided at an early
stage that the statistical analysis of the test results should be done by the program of “SPSS”, a programming
language for analyzing results of surveys.
The principle justification for using SPSS for the amount of data
involved (250 records) was statistical procedure to be used, two-way ANOVA (analysis of variance), would be
done much more effectively.
The tables and correlations of the data from the tests produced by this program are
given in Section 3.1 and 3.2.
It should be noted that the tests of recognizing are initially measured in terms of
time taken. Errors made of recognizing performance for the tests were exclusive of data analyzed.
3.0 Results
3.1
Basic statistical results of mean
Fig. 8
Recognizing performance of the view angle against
the graphic stylization
Fig. 9 Recognizing performance of the graphic stylization
against the view angle
The purpose of this research project has been to collect some reliable facts that would help packaging graphic
designers to produce more recognizable illustration for consumers and audience with defective view angle while
confronting of display shelf in shopping place.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of recognizing performance of
different view angles combine against the graphic stylization.
The order of the average results with better
recognizing performance is simplification (M=2.31 secs), complexity (M=2.35 secs) and then geometry (M=2.45
secs).
There is significance found between complexity and geometry (p=.045<.05), simplification and geometry
(p=.009<.05), but little significance found between simplification and complexity referred to the analysis of
multiple comparisons of mean difference.
The relative recognizing performance of different graphic stylization combine against the view angle is
presented by Figure 9.
That the average of all results ordered by the most efficiency is LR0 (M=2.15 secs), L18
(M=2.26 secs), R18 (M=2.34 secs), L36 (M=2.41 secs), L54 (M=2.457 secs), R36 (M=2.458 secs), R54 (M=2.52
secs).
It has been found that the significant mean difference merely existed in between LR0 and L18
(p=.033<.05), R18 and L36 (p=.002<.05), L36 and L54 (p=.038<.05).
3.2
Effect of angles of view on recognition of the graphic styled
It was found that not all comparisons of main effects were statistically significant for different vegetable
figures. Table 1 shows the interaction between ‘stylization’ and ‘view angle’ for each figure of vegetable.
For
the total subjects, ‘view angle’ was found to be statistically significant to all the figures of vegetable.
The
interaction between ‘stylization’ ‘view angle’ is occurred for the figures of asparagus, carrot and maize are
significant. Where a correlation does exist, it means that the joint effect of changing two variables at once, is
not merely what would have been expected if the two main effects were acting independently.
Thus for
example of asparagus, ‘smaller’ angles of view have been found more recognizable than ‘larger’, and the
illustration of ‘more complicated and detailed’ more recognizable than the ‘simplified’.
If two changes are
combined, however, the ‘larger’ vs. ‘‘simplified’’ styles is found to be rather better than would be expected
solely from the main effects, while the other style (‘smaller’ vs. ‘more complicated and detailed’) does rather
worse than expected.
Table 1.
Detection of interaction with main effects between stylization and view angle for each vegetable figure
Vegetable
figure
Asparagus
Carrot
Maize
Ginger
Green Pepper
Source of Variation
F
Stylization (main effect)
View angle (main effect)
Stylization -View angle (interaction)
Stylization (main effect)
View angle (main effect)
Stylization -View angle (interaction)
Stylization (main effect)
View angle (main effect)
Stylization -View angle (interaction)
Stylization (main effect)
View angle (main effect)
Stylization -View angle (interaction)
Stylization (main effect)
View angle (main effect)
Stylization -View angle (interaction)
.764
2.234*
3.392**
.625
3.182**
2.276*
2.432
3.077**
1.891*
1.995
2.481*
.513
3.339*
2.243*
.860
Note: ‘*’ mark means that the interaction between two variables is statistical significant (*, p <
0.05)(**, p < .001)
An analysis of the interaction of stylization with view angle is summarized in Table 2.
Of asparagus figure,
it has been found that statistically significant differences exist in the view angle of L54 (F=5.925, p=.011<.05),
LR0 (F=3.839, p=.041<.05 ) and R36 ( F=7.532, p=.004<.01 ), combine with the stylization of complexity
(F=5.623, p=.000<.01 ) and geometry (F=3.443, p=.007<.01).
Of carrot figure, it has been found that
statistically significant differences exist in L36 (F=4.718, p=.023<.05), combine with simplification (F=3.797,
p=.004<.01 ) and geometry (F=2.933, p=.018<.05).
Of maize figure, it has been found that statistically
significant differences exist in L54 (F=4.210, p=.032<.05 ) and L36 (F=10.734, p=.001<.01 ), combine with
complexity (F=8.507, p=.000<.01 ) and geometry (F=2.773, p=.023<.05).
Table2.
The interaction occurred in between the ‘stylization’ or ‘view angle’
Asparagus
Carrot
Maize
View angles
L54, LR0, R36
L36
L54, L36
Stylization
Complexity, Geometry
Simplification, Geometry
Complexity, Geometry
On the basis of the multiple comparisons analysis of significant difference detected (Table 2.) and means
estimated (Table 3), the performance of graphic style interact with the specific view angle can be ordered and
summarized in the Table 4.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of mean combined graphic stylization against view angle for each figure of vegetable
Graphic
Stylization
Number
Asparagus
Carrot
Maize
of
Average Standard Average Standard Average Standard
View Subjects
Seconds Difference Seconds Difference Seconds Difference
Angles
N
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
L54
L36
L18
Complexity LR0
R18
R36
R54
L54
L36
L18
Simplification LR0
R18
R36
R54
L54
L36
L18
Geometry
LR0
R18
R36
R54
Table 4.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
3.948
3.452
2.705
2.364
2.679
3.202
3.106
2.831
2.995
2.564
3.314
2.664
2.852
3.249
2.867
3.014
3.349
2.395
3.268
3.903
2.750
.480
.860
.533
.688
.425
.573
.511
.672
.970
.451
.871
.940
.407
.737
.863
.275
.838
.603
.789
.551
.734
1.621
1.569
1.671
1.892
1.793
1.802
2.079
1.514
2.344
1.480
1.441
1.899
1.487
1.734
1.821
2.179
1.326
2.118
1.574
1.691
1.879
.189
.398
.428
.596
.275
.345
.723
.152
.593
.280
.379
.665
.292
.525
.499
.481
.286
.563
.358
.515
.477
1.652
1.326
1.554
1.739
1.626
1.638
2.563
2.068
1.984
1.695
1.407
1.555
1.977
1.961
2.380
1.451
1.838
1.724
1.522
1.656
2.053
.336
.240
.311
.238
.343
.298
.584
.510
.318
.306
.432
.223
.787
.439
.542
.287
.428
.645
.332
.818
.312
The order of recognizing performance of graphic stylization combined against the view angle
Vegetable figure
Asparagus
Carrot
Maize
View Angles
L54
LR0
R36
L36
L54
L36
Order of stylization by better performance
simplification or geometry > complexity
complexity or geometry > simplification
complexity or simplification > geometry
complexity > simplification or geometry
complexity or simplification > geometry
complexity or geometry > simplification
For the figures of asparagus and maize, a moderate decrease in details of the graphic styled such as
simplification can achieve the best performance in recognition for the larger view angles (R36, L54 and R54).
In
general, larger angles of view tend to interact with the graphic styles in recognizing performance, and the
illustration of these three vegetables close to real image featured as complexity will perform well.
It is, however,
worse performance for the graphic style of geometry in the larger view angles which are R36 for the figure
asparagus, L36 for carrot and L54 for Maize.
4. Conclusions
A consumer will be not impressed upon packaging graphics or confused the graphic of product content
when a product package was put on the inferior location and seen with defective angles of view.
Some
generalizations about graphic style affecting the figure recognizing for the consumers with defective view
angles are certainly suggested by the investigation.
A. It confirms that larger angles of view, recognizing performance tend to be worse.
performance is assured to be LR0 (zero degree of view angle without head turn).
The best
The worst
performance has been occurred in the view angles of R36, L54 and R54.
B. The recognizing performance in larger angles of view such as R36, L36 and L54, can be interacted
with the affect of the graphic styles.
C. The results show that the graphic styles of complexity and simplification are better than geometry.
Particularly, simplification is strengthened while confronting the largest angles of view (L54 and R54) for
the vegetable figures of asparagus and maize that features have been distributed to the right or left side.
Acknowledgment
This paper was extracted by the result of the research project sponsored by National Science Council of the
Republic of China. The contract number was NSC 90-2218-E-011-016.
References
1.
Meyer, R. P. & Laveson J.I., An Experience Judgment Approach to Tactical Flight Training, Proceedings of
Human Factors Society-25th Annual Meeting, 659-660(1981)
2.
Wang, R. & Lin, Y.C., The Application of Graphic Stylization in the Illustration Design of Commodity
Package, Design Journal, Chinese Institute of Design, Vol. 7(2), 77-93(2002)
3.
Guong, J., Human Body and In-House Space, Taipei: Yuan-Liu, 58(1991)
4.
Henry Dreyfuss Associates, Head and Vision, Humanscale, New York: The MIT Press, 6a.
5.
Gibson, J.J., The Perception of the Visual World, Boston: Houghton Miffin, 172(1950)
6.
Bloomer, C., Principles of Visual Perception, London: The Herbert Press, 74-75(1990)
7.
Chiou, H.C., Qualitative Research and Statistical Analysis in Social & Behavioral Science, Taipei: Wu-Nan,
3-18(1999)