Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Astron,

Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2013, 17:50:46 schrieben Sie:
Hi Björn,

Sorry for stepping in here. The results are just what it says in 
post. Yes, we did an analysis of data that was not gathered for 
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 
worse than less detail - but it can falsify the hypothesis that 
is no difference between more and less detail icons in this 
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

You haven't: We did an expert rating (that what I wrote - and to add 
some more flesh to it:) with two experts (Heiko and me) working 
independently and discussing were categorization differed.

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.

Most people complaining did not read the article well. Unfortunately 
you find this behavior often in the net. But on the other hand, I do 
not want to censor even the less appropriate comments.

So yes, you are right - there are issues to the validity. Take it as 
I said before: it is an indicator for the mentioned hypothesis and 
perhaps someone gets encouraged to pick it up and validate the 

You know, it really makes me sad how initiatives like these are 
always bashed upon. During my studies I had a course where we 
examined the 10 most-cited studies in Psychology from a 
methodological viewpoint. None of them was even close to bulletproof. 
Nevertheless they are valid - mostly because people re-did what was 
done before using (slightly) different methodology.

Back to our study: all raw data is freely available. Take it, 
categorize the icons the way you think it is appropriate and start 
discussing the difference in results. If you are not satisfied, 
create a study on your own - the tool you can make this with is 
freely available - again discuss the results. Untill then: I do not 
only have an opinion - I have some data that indicates a direction. 
Please be a bit more moderate if you haven't. I am moderate too - 
e.g. I do not claim anyone to do anything based on the results 
(except perhaps trying to falsify the findings on a data base).

I really hope to get some support here - we need to go ahead based on 
research (as good as we can). You see in this and other threads, what 
happens when we all just talk about our own preferences...

All the best,

Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs
Business Management & Research
T +49 30 6098548-21 | M +49 179 4541949

User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise 
Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin | 
HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn Balazs

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.