I guest that the number of participants is 99. (I don't have the real data.)
| Yes U. Not U. | Yes U. Not U.
--------------+-------------------+--------------------
Bold | 99/99 0/99 | 100.00% 0.00%
Italic | 99/99 0/99 | 100.00% 0.00%
Underlined | 99/99 0/99 | 100.00% 0.00%
Strike-t. | 54/99 45/99 | 54.55% 45.45%
L. Chain | 35/99 64/99 | 35.29% 64.71%
L. Globe | 25/99 74/99 | 25.00% 75.00%
Ordered L. | 99/99 0/99 | 100.00% 0.00%
Unordered L. | 93/99 6/99 | 93.94% 6.06%
Image | 78/99 21/99 | 78.79% 21.21%
Undo | 57/99 42/99 | 57.58% 42.42%
Redo | 51/99 48/99 | 51.52% 48.48%
PS: Your decimals leak information. :)None of which really matters, at all. It's a blog post not a journal paper or a research report. It would have been nice to see a link to a full account but perhaps they couldn't decide how to represent that.
Omitting these details turns it into "a fun discussion". Including these details (even as a footnote) would turn it into a potentially useful piece of research.
Re:Usability in Icons
by calpaterson on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @08:26AM
(#2890861)
Apparently it was his bachelors thesis though, so he's (hopefully) written to academic levels of detail before before...
- How many participants were tested? - Who was tested? - What kind of test was it? Survey? Lab study? etc? - Between subjects or within (i.e. did the same people see all the icons)?
I could go on.