10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade

de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro

A EFICIÊNCIA DE LEGENDAS EM INSTRUÇÕES ANIMADAS

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CAPTIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL ANIMATION
José Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Doutor, Universidade Federal do Paraná
e-mail: marconi2006@googlemail.com

Animação, instrução e legenda

Quatro designs de legendas são comparados em relação: (1) às suas representações visuais e (2) aos tipos de
informação veículada. Os resultados mostram que (1) operações devem ser apresentadas através de imagens ao
invés de texto; e que (2) a oferta de informação operacional permite por si que tarefas possam ser completadas com
sucesso.

Animation, instruction and caption

Four designs of animated captions are compared in terms of: (1) visual representations and (2) type of information
conveyed. The results shows that (1) operations should be pictorial instead of textual; and (2) the provision of
operational information only allows successful completion of tasks.

1. The problem

Animated demonstrations can be an effective way

to learn new software, in particular tasks involving
direct manipulation features rich in “drag and
drop” operations, which involves fairly complex
movements (Plaisant e Shneiderman, 2005).
However, this learning process can be a very
cognitively demanding task because people still
have to harmonize and synchronize at least four
sources of information (Meij, 1998; Westendorp,
2002; Ganier, 2004), which are:
• instructional content itself
• their prior knowledge on how to use apparently
similar software
• outputs from software graphic interface, and
• input device manipulation (e.g., operations
involving keyboard, trackball, and mouse).
Considering this complexity, any attempt to
improve the effectiveness of captions that are
embedded in animated instructions is likely to have
an effect on learners’ performance. Such captions
are graphics devices similar to comic-balloon
shapes that are used to convey instructional
information about a certain procedure (Figure 1).
The purpose of caption is to complement animated
demonstration with textual or pictorial information
that would be, otherwise, transmitted aurally. Even
though important, the effect of such essential
component of purely visual demonstrations (i.e.,
no sound or voice narration) has not been yet
deeply examined as this study intends to do.
Figure 1 - An example of an animated caption with
content in textual format. In the detail (right side) it is
possible to see how the caption is placed near to the
subject to which it refers.
Due to the lack of research, choosing the best
caption design for an apparently simple operation,
such as “click the mouse button”, can be
questionable because it is not clear yet which
visual representation (i.e., textual, pictorial or
animated) is the most effective solution for
representing such operation. Furthermore,
literature does not provide an easy answer to how
much or what type of instructional information
(i.e., operational only or operational plus
explanatory) should be conveyed. To explore
these gaps, this study will be primarily concerned
with comparing the effectiveness of visual
representation variables; and, secondarily, it will
explore how much information content should be
contained in captions.

2. Literature review
2.1 Study question 1: What is the most effective
visual representation for captions?
Literature does not offer a single answer to what
type of visual representation is the most adequate
for captions. On the contrary, research-based
guidelines provide suggestions as conflicting as
these:
• Instructions should be presented in “dual
formats” (i.e., illustrated text) even if these
formats communicate the same content because
this repetition of information helps users to
deepen their comprehension of the instructional
message (Mayer, 2001).
• In contrast, it has also been suggested that if
instruction can be clearly represented using only
one type of representation, then repeating
information should be avoided because this
redundancy will lead to cognitive overload and,
as a consequence, hinder learning (Sweller,
2002). Thus, when users simply want to perform
certain tasks “the best communication is as
minimal as possible, and in text only”
(Westendorp, 2002, p. 167).
Even though research suggests that text is a good
solution for describing simple and familiar
instructions (Westendorp, 2002), there is no
guarantee that textual captions are really the best
option in slightly more complex circumstances as
in the case of the current study. On the contrary,
most of the literature reviewed here suggests that
text alone is likely to be the least effective solution
for presenting procedures (Michas e Berry, 2000;
Hooijdonk e Krahmer, 2008). The rationale for
using pictures instead or with text is that it is not
just enough stating what people need to do in
words but it is also necessary to demonstrate
visually how to do so (Krull, 1995). Even though
it could be argued that pictures-only instructions
are not traditionally used to inform “how to do”
things, research (Szlichcinski, 1984; Michas e
Berry, 2000; Rodriguez, 2002) has already
demonstrated that, at least for learning simple
procedural tasks, users are able to infer “how to
do” procedures by just observing pictorial
instructions (in static graphic, animated and video
formats).
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
Besides representing operational information,
pictorial instructions can also convey “coordinative
information” (Meij, 1998), which enable users to
coordinate the manipulation of input devices, such
as a mouse or keyboard, in conjunction with
graphic user interface responses to this
manipulation. In spite of this potential benefit,
pictorial representations of coordinative
information are scarce in computer-related
instructions because, apparently, technical
communicators might judge this information as
less important or unnecessary (Meij, 1998).
Furthermore, technical writers might not have
skills, time and resources to design pictorial
instructions. They also might imply that most users
is already familiar with a mouse or keyboards and,
as a consequence, pictures showing how to use
them will be redundant. For example, some
writers might think that there is no need to use
pictures or animations showing how to “click the
mouse button”; instead it is enough to state this
action textually and briefly. Contrary to this view,
Krull (1995) suggests that instructions should go
beyond steps’ description and also depict physical
actions because readers will need to “have the
correct image of what they are required to do” and
illustrations “give readers ways to monitor their
own performance” (Krull, 1995, p. 11) .
In summary, literature suggests a picture showing
“how to click the mouse button” (Figure 3) not
only will reinforce the comprehension of text
(referred to as “multimedia principle” by Mayer,
2001), but will also help learners to coordinate
their motor actions and monitor if they had in fact
clicked the “right button” (Krull, 1995; Meij,
1998). In spite of the importance of investigating
the effectiveness of pictorial captions, little
research on instructional animation has explored
this issue. So, this experiment aims to be a
contribution in this direction.
2.2 Study question 2: what type of information
should be conveyed by captions?
There is a conflicting set of guidelines on selecting
the quantity and type of information that should be
embedded in each instructional step. Some
researchers suggest that besides directives on what
and how to do a given operation, further
information on the reasons underlying procedures
should be provided. According to this view,
explanatory information will help learners to

expand their knowledge since they will remember
instructions more easily when they have
understood their application. So, explanatory
information is likely to have a positive effect on
learners who are required to transfer rather than
reproduce newly acquired knowledge (Redish,
1989; Steehouder, Karreman et al., 2000). In
summary, it is not sufficient to state “click the right
mouse button” without explaining the purpose of
doing so (e.g., to activate the pen tool, click the
mouse button) and its outcome (e.g., note that the
pen tool icon has been activated). However, this
view contrasts with research on “minimalist”
instructions that suggest that explanatory
information is likely to overwhelm users or be
neglected by them, mainly when the user’s “main
goal is to have the machine do what they bought it
for” (Westendorp, 2002, p. 165). According to this
view, most users will be able to make sense of
steps just by practicing them (Carroll, 1990).
In conclusion, the conflict in design approach can
be observed in the following set of guidelines:
• Steps should be action-oriented and as minimal
as possible because users are able to infer a
step’s purpose on their own (i.e., “learning-by-
doing” approach), and because they are likely to
refrain from reading long sentences (Carroll,
1990).
• In contrast, others suggest that steps should have
additional explanatory information because users
need further guidance to understand the purpose
of each single step and be able to detect software
feedback to each step (Steehouder, Karreman et
al., 2000).
Since literature does not make clear when
operational-only and/or operational and
explanatory information should be provided, this
issue will also be explored in this experiment.
Therefore, the basic question is whether the
additional explanatory information will have a
positive effect on user performance (particularly on
the post-training transfer task).
3. Method
3.1 Hypothesis and experimental variables
The experiment is based on significance testing
and so the null hypothesis was adopted.
To explore the first question (what is the most
effective visual representation for captions?), four
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
animated demonstrations embedded with captions
were developed: two contain exclusively Textual
captions (Figure 2) referred to as the “Action” and
“Explanatory” tutorials. Other two contain
captions predominantly pictorial (Figure 3)
referred to as “Illustrated” and “Wordless”
tutorials. To explore the second question (what
type of information should be conveyed by
captions?), two categories of animated tutorials
will be compared: three tutorials will contain only
operational information (i.e., Action, Illustrated
and Wordless); and one will contain operational
information plus explanatory texts describing the
purpose of each step and additional advice on
computer feedback (Explanatory tutorial).
The experimental design does not treat both
variables (visual representation and information
content) in the same way because the primary
question (what is the best representation of
operational information?) was prioritized.
Textual captions
The Action tutorial contains captions with minimal
text that is embedded in a yellow balloon. Text
describes mouse interaction (i.e., operational
information).
The Explanatory tutorial contains captions with
text that is embedded in a yellow and grey balloon.
Yellow balloon’s text describes action’s purpose
and mouse interaction. Grey balloon’s text
describes outcome (i.e., software reaction) of
previous action.
Pictorial captions
The Illustrated tutorial contains captions that
integrate pictures and a description of each
operation, which is embedded in a grey balloon.
The Wordless tutorial contains animated Wordless
captions of each operation. These captions contains
short animation demonstrating hand-mouse
interaction without using words. The visual
example (Figure 3) shows four frames excerpted
from an animation showing the mouse click action.
The Wordless animated caption is presented
synchronously with the animated step (not before
the action like the other versions) because its
demonstrative nature does not require time for
reading.

Figure 2 - Example of text-only captions.
3.2 The tasks
The tasks chosen are related to how to use graphic
vector-based software Bezier tools (i.e., Inkscape’s
pen tool). Three tasks of increasing complexity
were devised. In task 1, the easiest one,
participants were asked to draw a triangle. In task
2, participants were asked to draw a spiral shape.
Finally, in task 3 participants were asked to draw a
heart shape. This latter task will require the
participant to transfer the skills that they have
acquired from tasks 1 and 2. Tasks varied their
complexity in terms of the increase in the number
of anchor points to be followed (i.e., they
determine where user interaction is necessary) and
the type of mouse interaction (i.e., “point and
click” or “point, drag and drop”) to be carried out.
3.3 Participants
Forty “beginners” took part in this study on a
voluntary basis. These beginners are participants
that, regardless their academic background, are not
familiar with using certain category of software, in
this case a graphic software. However, all
participants were familiar with standard office
tools, such as Microsoft Office applications. Four
groups of ten participants used each version of
animated tutorials. They were asked to complete
the 3 tasks (described before) and 10 measures
were used to analyse performance.
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
Figure 3 – Example of pictorial captions
3.4 Measures
Besides the broad measure adopted in studies of
this kind (i.e., mistakes and completion time) other
performance related actions were also adopted
(e.g., undo, redundant actions and consultation to
tutorial). This decision was based on the graphic
software nature of the tasks and the fact that such a
variety of caption types have not been tested
before. In other words, it would be advisable to
investigate captions in more detail and, then, find
out to what extent each type will influence
participants’ behaviour. Finally, the exploratory
character of using such diverse measures will be a
further methodological contribution to research on
this field.
The measures are organized into four categories:
• Time: measures the length of time that
participants spent learning and practicing the
tasks (i.e., overall learning and practicing time).
• Performance: counts and categorizes all type of
actions carried out by the participants (i.e.,
 10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro

overall number of actions, mistakes, redundant Measure Wordless captions Illustrated captions
actions, consultations and “undos”) better than of Textual better than Textual
versions versions
• Ratio between mistakes and other measures:
Explanatory Action Explanatory Action
counts the proportion between mistakes and two
other related actions (i.e., correct actions to Overall
time p< 0.01
mistakes and mistakes per undo). learning

Time
p<0.05
4. Results practicing

Overall p<0.05 p<0.01 p<0.05

number
A two-away analysis of variance (ANOVA) with of actions
two factors (between and within subjects) was Mistakes p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.05 p<0.001
carried out for all measurements. Four tutorial’s
Redunda
captions were compared between subjects and 3 p<0.05
nt actions
tasks of increasing complexity within subjects. If Consultat
significant main effects were found then post hoc ion to
tutorial
multiple comparisons among means (using
Undo
Tukey’s test) were also carried out. By using actions
p<0.05
Tukey’s test, it is possible to detect which type of
Rate of
caption(s) was (were) more effective than others. Mistakes p< 0.01 p<0.001 p<0.05
per undo

The results show that users of the animated Ratio of

correct
Wordless captions had the best performance actions to
p< 0.05
because, in comparison to at least one of the mistake

Textual versions, they: Figure 4 - Summary of results in which users of the

• spent less time learning the training tasks, and
practicing all three instructions
• carried out fewer actions made fewer mistakes
• had a higher ratio of correct actions per mistake,
and
• had a ratio nearer one to one of mistakes to undo.
The results show that users of Illustrated captions
performed better, in comparison to at least one of
the Textual versions, because they:
• carried out fewer actions
• made fewer mistakes, and
• had a ratio nearer to one to one of mistakes to
undo.
In brief, the results suggest that pictorial captions
are more effective than Textual versions for
conveying operational information (Figure 3). The
results also suggest that participants who received
operational plus explanatory information had no
advantage in relation to participants who received
only operational information. Detailed examination
of data suggests that animated Wordless caption
seems to be the most effective way to
communicate operational information.
Wordless and Illustrated tutorials performed better than
users of the Explanatory and Action versions. The cells
indicate significant difference (Tukey’s test).
5. Discussion
5.1 Wordless captions vs. Textual versions
The fact that users of animated Wordless captions
performed better that users of Textual version is in
harmony with research indicating that static
Wordless instructions (printed or on-screen) are
effective for teaching procedures of varied
complexity (Szlichcinski, 1979, 1984; Rodriguez,
2002; Agarwala, Phan et al., 2003; Rodriguez e
Polson, 2004; Schumacher, 2007). Similar results
was also found in research that compared
instructions on dynamic media, such as wordless
video (Michas e Berry, 2000; Hooijdonk e
Krahmer, 2008) or gesture-only demonstration
(Lozano e Tversky, 2006). In all these wordless
instructions were used to teach people how to carry
out procedures, such as furniture assembling, first
aid bandaging, activation of display controls, RSI
exercises, and computer printer set-up. So, the
current study indicates that software-related tasks
can also be effectively taught by using animated
Wordless captions, particularly when these tasks

involve graphic software and intense manipulation
of input devices, such as the mouse.
Furthermore, the results also indicate that the
effectiveness of animated Wordless captions goes
beyond allowing people simply to imitate
procedures (as it was suggested by Palmiter e
Elkerton, 1993). The performance of users of the
Wordless animations improved, not only in tasks
that required imitation (i.e., two training tasks), but
also in near transfer tasks that required some level
of interpretation of newly acquired knowledge.
Indeed, further research could expand this idea and
test to what extent animated wordless instructions
help people perform far transfer tasks (i.e.,
participants may be asked to create, rather than
trace, a more complex geometric drawing).
The advantage of animated Wordless captions is in
clear contrast to research suggesting that text only
instructions are the best type of visual
representation for conveying operations
(Westendorp, 2002). A possible explanation for
this discrepancy is that here operations were
considerably more complex than in Westendorp’s
research. In other words, it might be that the
manipulation of mouse features (which sometimes
involves simultaneous and subtle actions) is a more
complex operation than pressing telephone display
buttons in a certain sequential order. On the other
hand, it is not so clear to what extent people’s
familiarity with a certain type of input device will
have an effect on instructions’ effectiveness. For
example, it can be argued that nowadays mouse
related actions are as easy as operating telephone
displays and, thus, this might not account for
explaining the effectiveness of animated Wordless
captions in relation to Textual versions. These
extremely different results indicate that further
research could explore more deeply the extent to
which the complexity of single operations
(composed of simple and complex movements)
and the learning context variables (familiar and
unfamiliar equipment or software) influences the
effectiveness of specific visual instructions.
In spite of these reservations, this study is a strong
indication that the process of learning unfamiliar
graphic software using relatively familiar input
devices (i.e., mouse) is likely to be facilitated by
animation embedded with pictorial captions
demonstrating how to use such devices. Thus,
there is little doubt that, in these cases, the simple
Textual description of operations is not as effective
for learning graphic software procedures as
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
animated wordless demonstrations of the same
operations.
5.2 Illustrated vs. Textual captions
The fact that users of Illustrated captions
performed better than users of Textual version and
this advantage for Illustrated is clearly supported
by existing research on the facilitation effect
caused by the integration of pictures and text
(Levie e Lentz, 1982; Mayer, 2001; Carney e
Levin, 2002; Houts, Doak et al., 2006). For these
researchers there is little doubt that Illustrated
captions are likely to be superior to using text only.
Indeed, this study is a further confirmation of this
idea because the result shows that in relation to
Textual versions, Illustrated captions are likely to
be a superior format, though not good as animated
Wordless captions (this will be discussed in the
next paragraph).
5.3 The distinction between pictorial captions
Even though no difference was found between
Illustrated and Wordless captions users of
Wordless captions had a more consistent advantage
compared to Textual versions. In more detail, users
of animated Wordless captions could perform
faster than users of Textual versions in both time
measures (i.e., overall learning time and practicing
time). Furthermore, users of Wordless captions
also carried out fewer redundant actions, did not
need to undo mistakes as often, and carried teach
procedural rather than conceptual topics
(Michas e Berry, 2000; Rodriguez, 2002;
Hooijdonk e Krahmer, 2008). In the case of
Michas and Berry’s study (2002), when
operational movements were communicated
through wordless video or pictures (referred to as
“enhanced drawings”), they were as effective as
Illustrated versions. Furthermore, when designed
following certain rules, printed versions of
wordless instructions led to superior performance
than when text and pictures were integrated
(Rodriguez, 2002). So, these researches lead to the
conclusion that when wordless instructions
(including the animated Wordless captions used in
this study) are carefully designed, their self-
explanatory properties will increase, and this
increment will compensate for the absence of
additional text.

6. Conclusion
In relation to the effectiveness of visual
representations, the results suggest that pictorial
captions are more effective than textual versions in
conveying operational information. This is
supported by the fact that users of both tutorials
containing pictorial captions (Wordless and
Illustrated) could perform better in all three tasks
(i.e., two training and one near transfer) than users
of textual versions. So, the conclusion is that
operational information related to the manipulation
of mouse features should be conveyed by using
pictorial captions rather than textual versions.
A secondary conclusion is that, regardless of task
type (post-training), there is no evidence
suggesting that the addition of explanatory
information will improve users’ performance. In
other words, the performance of participants who
used both textual captions was equivalent
regardless of the type and amount of information
they received. Furthermore, there is a strong
indication that if users are exposed to pictorial
captions conveying operational information only
then their performance is likely to be superior to
users who are exposed to textual captions
conveying both operational and explanatory
information. So, the conclusion is that the
provision of operational information only is
sufficient to allow users to complete the tasks
successfully.
The results also indicates that captions can be
pictorial when animated demonstrations are
targeted at learners who have no experience using
a certain category of software and contain captions
conveying operational information. Although the
external validity of such conclusions should be
further tested, it seems that designers should avoid
purely textual captions. This suggestion implies in
a major change in the way that animated
demonstrations are designed, since current practice
adopts textual captions, which in this study was the
least effective type of visual representation.
Another suggestion is that developers of screen-
recording software should consider the inclusion of
features that facilitates adding Illustrated or
animated Wordless captions (hands manipulating
keyboards, mouse, pen-tablet, trackball, etc) to
animated demonstration of software. The
inclusion of these new features will facilitate the
production of more effective animation, even if
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
they are designed by people with a background in
writing rather than graphic design.
Finally, this study indicates that the systematic
investigation on how to convey operational
information is a very promising field of design
research. This involves studies that aim to explore
to what extent predominantly pictorial
representations are effective instructional formats.
Indeed, further research should continue asking
how, when and why they seem so useful for
teaching people how to do things. Hopefully, this
study will help practitioners and encourage other
researchers creating guidelines on how to design
effective animated demonstrations.
6. Bibliography
Agarwala, M., D. Phan, et al. Designing effective
step-by-step assembly instructions. ACM
Transactions on Graphics, v.22, n.3, July, p.828-
837. 2003.
Carney, R. N. e J. R. Levin. Pictorial Illustrations
Still Improve Students' Learning from Text.
Educational Psychology Review, v.14, n.1, March,
p.5-26. 2002.
Carroll, J. M. The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing
Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer
Skill. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 1990
Ganier, F. Factors affecting the processing of
procedural instructions: implications for document
design. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, v.47, n.1, 2004, p.15-26. 2004.
Hooijdonk, C. V. e E. Krahmer. Information
Modalities for Procedural Instructions: The
Influence of Text, Pictures, and Film Clips on
Learning and Executing RSI Exercises. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication,
v.51, n.1, March, p.50-62. 2008.
Houts, P. S., C. C. Doak, et al. The role of pictures
in improving health communication: A review of
research on attention, comprehension, recall, and
adherence. Patient Education Counselling, v.61,
n.2, May, p.173-190. 2006.
Krull, R. What research about thinking and doing
suggests about technical documentation. Society
for Technical Communication Conference 1995.
Washington. May, 1995. 9-12 p.

Levie, W. H. e R. Lentz. Effects of text
illustrations: A review of research. Educational
Technology Research and Development, v.30, n.4,
p.195-232. 1982.
Lozano, S. C. e B. Tversky. Communicative
gestures facilitate problem solving for both
communicators and recipients. Journal of Memory
and Language, v.55, n.1, p.47-63. 2006.
Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning. New York,
USA: The Cambridge University Press. 2001. 210
p.
Meij, H. V. D. Optimizing the joint handling of
manual and screen. In: J. M. Carroll (Ed.).
Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel.
Massachusetts, USA: The MIT Press, 1998.
Optimizing the joint handling of manual and
screen, p.275-309
Michas, I. C. e D. C. Berry. Learning a procedural
task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, v.14, n.6,
November, p.555-575. 2000.
Palmiter, S. e J. Elkerton. Animated
demonstrations for learning procedural computer-
based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, v.8,
p.193-216. 1993.
Plaisant, C. e B. Shneiderman. Show me!
Guidelines for producing recorded demonstrations.
2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and
Human-Centric Computing. 21-24 September,
2005. 171- 178 p.
Redish, J. C. Reading to learn to do. IEEE
Transaction on Professional Communication, v.32,
n.4, December 1989, p.289-293. 1989.
Rodriguez, M. A. Development of diagrammatic
procedural instructions for performing complex
one-time tasks. International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction, v.14, n.3/4, p.405-422.
2002.
Rodriguez, M. A. e P. G. Polson. Creating usable
wordless instructions for performing complex one-
time tasks: Effects of violating the rules. Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Proceedings. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA:
10º USIHC – Anais do 10º Congresso Internacional de Ergonomia e Usabilidade
de Interfaces Humano-Computador
17 a 20 de maio de 2010 – PUC-Rio / Rio de Janeiro
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 20-24
September, 2004. 941-945 p.
Schumacher, P. Creating effective illustrations for
pictorial assembly instructions. Information Design
Journal, v.15, n.2, p.97-109. 2007.
Steehouder, M., J. Karreman, et al. Making sense
of step-by-step procedures. IEEE Professional
Communication Society International Professional
Communication Conference and 18th annual ACM
International Conference on Computer
Documentation: Technology & Teamwork.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: IEEE Educational
Activities Department Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2000. 463 - 475 p.
Sweller, J. Visualisation and Instructional Design.
International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations
and Learning. Tübingen, Germany: Knowledge
Media Research Center. 18-19 July, 2002. 1501-
1510 p.
Szlichcinski, K. P. The syntax of pictorial
instructions. In: P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, et al
(Ed.). Processing of Visible Language 2 NATO
Conference series - III Human Factors. Niagara-
on-the Lake, Ontario, Canada: Plenun Press,
v.Volume 13, 1979. p.113-124.
______. Factors affecting the comprehension of
pictographic instructions. In: R. Easterby e H.
Zwaga (Ed.). Information design: the design and
evaluation of signs and printed material.
Chichester, USA: Willey, 1984. Factors affecting
the comprehension of pictographic instructions,
p.449-466
Westendorp, P. Presentation media for product
interaction. (PhD). Industrial Design Engineering,
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands,
2002. 221 p.
Agradecimentos
Agradeço a minha supervisora Mary Dyson
(University of Reading, UK) e ao CNPq –
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico
e Tecnológico pelo apoio a esta investigação.