don@brillig.umd.edu (Don Hopkins) (08/24/89)
In article <56543@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@itro3.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) writes: >In the world of instantly accessible information that we are >constructing I'm beginning to wonder what one should actually bother to >learn. That is, why know something when one can look it up using an >information locator service? I also wonder what the difference is >between knowing something and knowing where to find out about something. >-- >-- Russ abbott@itro3.aero.org You can't have an intuitive understanding of something if you only know where to look it up. And it's very hard to write down things you understand intuitivly so that other people can look them up. Here are my entries in the universal icon contest. I have my doubts that they are really universal, but I have not had the chance to test them out on any genuine space aliens yet to be sure. Arrows as icons for directions: Icon 0, left: * ** ******** ** * Icon 1, right: * ** ******** ** * Icon 2, up or forward: * *** ***** * * * Icon 3, down or back: * * * ***** *** * Icon 0 and Icon 1 seem less ambiguous to me than Icon 2 and Icon 3, which could each mean two different directions. So what *is* is about arrows that make them seem to indicate direction? (Or am I missing the point?) What other ideas could arrows be confused with? It probably has more to do with society than with the shape of arrow... Maybe the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional society has something to do with the ambiguity of icons 2 and 3? For some reason, arrows just don't seem elemental enough to be universal icons for direction. How about a very thin long rectangle as an icon for a 1-dimensional line segment, and a small circle as an icon for a dimensionless point? -Don "What's your sign?" "Neon!"
dmark@joey.cs.buffalo.edu (David Mark) (08/24/89)
In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes: > >Here are my entries in the universal icon contest. I have my doubts >that they are really universal, but I have not had the chance to test >them out on any genuine space aliens yet to be sure. > >Arrows as icons for directions: > >Icon 0, left: >Icon 1, right: >Icon 2, up or forward: >Icon 3, down or back: [I deleted Don's iconic representations of these to save space, and because our Pnews won't post items that have fewer new lines than extracted lines!] >Icon 0 and Icon 1 seem less ambiguous to me than Icon 2 and Icon 3, which >could each mean two different directions. > >So what *is* is about arrows that make them seem to indicate >direction? (Or am I missing the point?) What other ideas could arrows >be confused with? It probably has more to do with society than with >the shape of arrow... Maybe the fact that we live in a 3-dimensional >society has something to do with the ambiguity of icons 2 and 3? I agree that these are good candidates for at least 'quasi-universal' status. But, there are cross-cultural difference in the forward-back interpretations of 2 and 3. Overhead signs in train stations and airports in France code things as down==ahead, and up==backward. My interpretation is that we are "supposed" to think of the arrows being rotated into the plane of the CEILING. ("up==ahead" / "down==backward" assumes that we are mapping onto the plane of the ground or floor, I think.) Also, I seem to recall signs in the new Eastern Airlines terminal at Miami Airport using the "French convention". So, arrows for up-down-left-right may be nearly universal, but the mappings between the up-down and forward-back axes may not be. What other places and peoples, besides the French, use the "down==ahead" convention on overhead signs? By the way, the short answer on why left-right is distinct, but up-down and forward-back get confounded is that our two eyes are arranged side- by-side (ie., perpendicular to gravity). And that seems to be almost a biological universal. I can think of no creature with 2 eyes for binocular vision that has them arranged one above the other. If this is generally so, what is the selective advantage of having the plane of binocular vision perpendicular to the direction of gravity?? David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (08/24/89)
>In article <56543@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@itro3.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) writes: >>In the world of instantly accessible information that we are >>constructing I'm beginning to wonder what one should actually bother to > >Here are my entries in the universal icon contest. I have my doubts >that they are really universal, but I have not had the chance to test >them out on any genuine space aliens yet to be sure. > >Arrows as icons for directions: It is interesting to not that the "arrow" was invented in the early 20th century by a Bauhaus architectural/artist (I think it was Paul Klee). This might be worth looking up but, to make the point - the arrow seems to be a cultural recent artifact and perhaps its recency says something about its universality (?) Perhaps not. COmments? Edward Shelton, Project Manager ARCH Development Corporation arch_ems@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
lambert@piring.cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) (08/24/89)
In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes:
) Here are my entries in the universal icon contest. I have my doubts
) that they are really universal, but I have not had the chance to test
) them out on any genuine space aliens yet to be sure.
)
) Icon 3, down or back:
)
) *
) *
) *
) *****
) ***
) *
)
) Icon 0 and Icon 1 seem less ambiguous to me than Icon 2 and Icon 3, which
) could each mean two different directions.
On overhead signs on highways Icon 3 means "forward".
Icon 0
) *
) **
) ********
) **
) *
unmistakably depicts a goose flying towards the right -- no space aliens
needed there.
--
--Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@cwi.nltainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter) (08/24/89)
In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes: >Arrows as icons for directions: >Icon 0, left: >Icon 1, right: or back: or forward: > * > * > ** > ** > ******** > ******** > ** > ** > * > * >Icon 2, up or forward: >Icon 3, down or back: > * > * > *** > * > ***** > * > * > ***** > * > *** > * > * They all look equally ambiguous to me. >So what *is* is about arrows that make them seem to indicate >direction? Convention. Probably rooted in early cultural training that one points an arrow at (approximately) what one is hunting rather than some other direction. The rest is map related. A person reading a map probably has it layed out relative to the ground so up on the map is forward, left is left, etc. (regardless of ESWN) >For some reason, arrows just don't seem elemental enough to be >universal icons for direction. How about a very thin long rectangle >as an icon for a 1-dimensional line segment, and a small circle as an >icon for a dimensionless point? All of these things are symbols. Symbols get there values by convention. Many are abstractions of other symbols (i.e. drawn arrow as symbol for direction as abstraction from hunting arrow as symbol for direction) I don't think you are going to find many preexisting 'universal' icons because most foreign countries have all the symbol referents wrong. :-) :-) In fact, many parts of the USL(*) get these wrong. Your only hope is to start a campaign like the international road signs thingy. > -Don --johnathan.a.tainter-- att!ihlpb!tainter (*) United States of Litigation, formerly the USA
ian@mva.cs.liv.ac.uk (08/25/89)
In article <8351@boring.cwi.nl>, lambert@piring.cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) writes: > In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes: > > Icon 0 > > ) * > ) ** > ) ******** > ) ** > ) * > > unmistakably depicts a goose flying towards the right -- no space aliens > needed there. I think that icons are context dependent. If you're looking at a signpost or following a marked route and see icon 0, you will interpret it as a left arrow. If (this may get somewhat bizarre!) you are a pilot flying through an area inhabited by geese and you see this sign suspended from a helium filled balloon, you may interpret icon 0 as `beware of high-flying geese'. Similarly with the down arrow, it can be interpreted as meaning `behind you' on a station direction board or `this lane for ...' on a (British) motorway. If you were driving down the motorway and saw a sign (sorry for the additional lines): LIVERPOOL *** *** ***** *** * You wouldn't turn round and go in the opposite direction, but if you saw the same icon on a sign just outside a town, you would realise that you _do_ have to turn round. I believe that you have to learn the meanings of icons and the context in which they apply. Ian Finch Janet: ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva --------- Internet: ian%mva.cs.liv.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!ian@uk.ac.liv.cs.mva =============================================================================== Icon: A complex, blurry and easily misinterpreted pictorial representation of a single unambiguous word. ================================================================================
eru@tnvsu1.tele.nokia.fi (Erkki Ruohtula) (08/25/89)
(discussion about whether a picture of an arrow is a truly universal icon) When one tries to push an arrow-shaped object through or into some thick medium, it moves more easily in the pointed direction than in the opposite direction. I think people learn this early, regardless of the culture (the "thick medium" may be equally well be seal flesh, a bale of hay, or styrox). Erkki Ruohtula ! Nokia Telecommunications eru@tele.nokia.fi ! P.O. Box 33 SF-02601 Espoo, Finland
nrt@cs.brown.edu (08/26/89)
In article <440@mjolner.tele.nokia.fi> eru@tnvsu1.tele.nokia.fi (Erkki Ruohtula) writes:
When one tries to push an arrow-shaped object through or into some thick
medium, it moves more easily in the pointed direction than in
the opposite direction. I think people learn this early, regardless
of the culture (the "thick medium" may be equally well be seal flesh,
a bale of hay, or styrox).
Or air, for that matter.
What about arrows of the following form?
\
\
---------->
/
/
In this case I think that, once you know the arrow refers to position,
it is reasonable to think that the position would be marked by the
intersection of the lines in the diagram. This brings up another
"universal" icon possibility: 'X' marks the spot.
(BTW, as far as the up arrow / down arrow business is concerned, I at
least have a specific memory of having to have the up arrow in a
traffic light explained to me as a child.
Nick
Nick Thompson - nrt@cs.brown.edu
"When I say a thing is true, I mean that I cannot help believing it.
... But ... I do not venture to assume that my inabilities in the way
of thought are inabilities of the universe. I therefore define truth
as the system of my limitations, and leave absolute truth for those
that are better equipped." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmesandrea@hp-sdd.hp.com (Andrea K. Frankel) (08/26/89)
In article <1359@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> tainter@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (johnathan.tainter,ih,) writes: >In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP> don@brillig.umd.edu.UUCP (Don Hopkins) writes: >>So what *is* is about arrows that make them seem to indicate >>direction? > >Convention. Probably rooted in early cultural training that one points >an arrow at (approximately) what one is hunting rather than some other >direction. How about: the wake that a swimming animal|person|duck|boat makes in the water? The triangle always fans out behind the point. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664 "wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..." ______________________________________________________________________________ UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea Internet : andrea%hp-sdd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com (or @nosc.mil, @ucsd.edu) CSNET : andrea%hp-sdd@hplabs.csnet USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (08/26/89)
> Here are my entries in the universal icon contest. I have my doubts > that they are really universal, but I have not had the chance to test > them out on any genuine space aliens yet to be sure. > Icon 0, left: [left-pointing arrow] > Icon 1, right: [right-pointing arrow] > Icon 2, up or forward: [up-pointing arrow] > Icon 3, down or back: [down-pointing arrow] No aliens are needed. Try Frenchmen. In France an overhead sign indicating that you are to go forward bears a DOWN-pointing arrow, which makes me look for the stairs going down; an up-pointing arrow in that position always means that you should go up. (I'm not positive that this usage is universal throughout the country.) Similarly, in France if you are approaching a simple crossroads and the road to Calais is straight ahead, you will probably see two signs: at the far-left corner of the at the far-right corner of the intersection intersection ------------- ------------ | CALAIS > < CALAIS | ------------- ------------ The trick is that the signs are set diagonally, so that traffic approaching on the cross road can also read them. The interpretation of these icons is, then, that a left- or right-pointing arrow (of that shape) means you should take the road adjacent to the left or right of the sign, respectively. (This is a simplification valid for simple crossroads only. For other intersections, you have to be aware of what plane the sign is in!) This article is a cross-posted followup to a cross-posted original. I haven't added a followup-to line because I can't decide on one. This article is in the public domain. -- Mark Brader "It's okay to have our own language if we feel utzoo!sq!msb we need it, but why does it have to be used msb@sq.com as a nose to look down?" -- Becky Slocombe
norman@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) (08/26/89)
I suspect there is no such thing as a universal icon, and for a simple reason: The development of signs and symbols is a critical and difficult evolutionary step. Only humans seem to have made the step to symbols, and even with humans, the development of even such simple signs/symbols as tally marks for indicating amount (pebbles to indicate amunt of animals, or notches in a stick) came rather late -- thousands (tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands -- of years after the evolution of our species. If things were "obvious" they wouldn't have taken so long. (Simple enumeration schemes such as pebbles and marks appears to be the very first use of symbols, predating drawings. Enumeration (which is simpler than counting) also appears to be the forerunner of written language.) My colleague (Ed Hutchins -- an anthropologist before he put on his cognitive science uniform) and I argued in a paper that arrowheads were <<arbitrary>> conventions of direction, not understood by all cultures. ---- The remark that arrows pointing upward mean forward, except when overhead in France, where they point down to mean frontwards is probably the correct way. I recently was sent a pile of papers on direction giving, including some by one of the originator of this debate, David Mark. That is simply a coincidence. But one of the papers was by Roger Shepard and Shelly Hurwitz: Shepard, R.N., & Hurwitz, S. (1984). Upward direction, mental rotation, and discrimination of left and right turns in maps. Cognition, 18, 161-193. Shepard and Hurwitz argue that "because our standard viewpoint is somewhat elevated above the generally horizontal surface of the ground, two points (A and B) on a path leading away in front of us project onto an intervening vertical plane with the farther point B, above the nearer point A. ... Thus, there is ... a natural correspondence between the forward direction ... and the upward direction" Following that simple principle, if a vertical arrow is below the horizon, up means forward, but if it is above the horizon, up means backward and down means forard. So the French got it right. Which also means that even such a thing as an arrow that means direction has to be interpreted relative to the observer's point of view, so it can't be "universal." (Shepard and Hurwitz also discuss the standard mirror-reversing problem (I wouold tell you the page number but my Xerographic copy doesn't have any), but I will pass on discussing this old, old problem.) Don Norman INTERNET: dnorman@ucsd.edu Department of Cognitive Science D-015 BITNET: dnorman@ucsd University of California, San Diego AppleLink: D.NORMAN La Jolla, California 92093 USA [e-mail paths often fail: please give postal address and full e-mail path.]
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (08/27/89)
> On overhead signs on highways Icon 3 means "forward".
No it doesn't -- it means "pass under this sign", in other words,
it points "down" to the section of road you are to use.
However, as I and someone else noted, in France it is used to mean
"forward" in situations where passing under the sign or not doing
so are not applicable.
Mark Braderdennism@menace.rtech.COM (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork) (08/29/89)
In regards to the recent discussions of universal icons:
Amongst humans, I think there are at least a few universal icons, symbols
which anyone would understand. For instance,
...
.. ..
- . . -
- . . -
.. ..
/ ... \
/ \
/ \
| | |
would be recognizable as the Sun, if I had a little more resolution. Similarly,
the moon as a crescent or clouds as blobs or rain falling from clouds is
clearly recognizable in less than pictorial form as an icon. Moreover, anyone
on any planet would probably recognize the sun icon.
-- Dennis Moore, my own opinions, etc etc etc.efrethei@blackbird.afit.af.mil (Erik J. Fretheim) (08/29/89)
In article <3490@rtech.rtech.com> dennism@menace.UUCP (Dennis Moore (x2435, 1080-276) INGRES/teamwork) writes: >In regards to the recent discussions of universal icons: > >Amongst humans, I think there are at least a few universal icons, symbols >which anyone would understand. For instance, > > ... > .. .. >- . . - >- . . - > .. .. > / ... \ > / \ > / \ > | | | > >would be recognizable as the Sun, if I had a little more resolution. anyone >on any planet would probably recognize the sun icon. > Funny, Until I read further I though I recognized this as the universal map symbol for a hill. Oh well, if I'm not from a planet, may haps I'm from an astroid then (but one big enough to have hills on it to put on my map). :-). (smiley with his tongue hanging out) erik -- something for the signature wackers to wack.
lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) (08/30/89)
Wouldn't all people recognize this?
O
--+--
|
/ \
Wouldn't that be a universal icon?
P.S. If anybody's interested in joining a mailing list discussing User
Interfaces, please contact me (lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org).
____________________________________________________________________________
Nicholas Lubofsky | lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org | The Aerospace
(213) 336-5454 | {decvax,ihnp4}trwrb!aero!lubofsky | Corporation
VoiceMailbox 3064 | Life is precious, Love is so rare... | Los Angeles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sleat@sim.ardent.com (Michael Sleator) (08/30/89)
In article <8351@boring.cwi.nl> lambert@piring.cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) writes: >) Icon 3, down or back: >) >) * >) * >) * >) ***** >) *** >) * >) > >On overhead signs on highways Icon 3 means "forward". Strange... I never thought of this interpretation. I always thought of the downward arrow as indicating "this lane", i.e., a selection rather than a direction. The direction is implicit, in that if you try and go backward, you will probably be killed. Michael Sleator Ardent Computer 880 W. Maude Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA 408-732-0400 ...!{decwrl | hplabs | ubvax | uunet}!ardent!sleat
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/30/89)
In article <56868@aerospace.AERO.ORG> lubofsky@aero.UUCP (Nick Lubofsky) writes: >Wouldn't all people recognize this? > > O > --+-- > | > / \ Ah! I will go with this, better than rain drops (which tend to rare in Arctic and arid regions), the sun and Moon (in jungle regions), etc. >Wouldn't that be a universal icon? ^^^^^^^^^ What do you mean we EARTHman? 8) Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.
ok@.cs.mu.oz (Richard O'Keefe) (08/30/89)
In article <19238@mimsy.UUCP>, don@brillig.umd.edu (Don Hopkins) suggests a left-pointing arrow for "left", a right-pointing arrow for "right", an upwards-pointing arrow for "up" or "forwards", and a downwards-pointing arrow for "down" or "backwards". (a) Real arrows are not a cultural universal. There are thriving cultures which had never heard of them until European contact. (b) The arrow signs are not very iconic. A few decades ago, the arrow signs were better pictures: more like <--------<<. This picture grossly exaggerates the arrow head, but at least it gets in the feathers, which are the important thing about an arrow. A picture like <- is *extremely* abstract; if I hadn't been told that it stood for an arrow I would never have guessed. (I had no such trouble with the older form.) In any case, most Westerners these days seldom see real arrows. <- looks more like a satellite antenna. (c) It isn't just the up/forward and down/backward arrows which are ambiguous. If you have a collection of icons being read from right to left, does the left-pointing arrow mean "in the same direction as you are reading" or "left"? I recently had serious trouble with a direction sign which I understood to mean "forwards then up" but turned out to mean "forwards then right". (The "forwards" part of the arrow in question was horizontal, pointing to my left, and the "right" part was vertical: ^ .) |___ (d) There's another ambiguity: does <- mean "left" or "west"? Bear in mind that 16th century maps used to be drawn with east at the top...
shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson) (08/31/89)
+-- lubofsky@aero.UUCP (Nick Lubofsky) writes: | Wouldn't all people recognize this? | | O | --+-- | | | / \ I don't know how accurate this is, but I heard once that "primative" tribal people who had never encountered photgraphs before were not able to see the image it depicted. They saw it as a surface with colored patches on it. They certainly knew how to deal with objects, but not with pictures of objects. They had to learn how to interpret the representation. Anyone know if this kind of thing really happened, or if it's just one of those stories? -- Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.UUCP) Action by HAVOC (ferguson@metaphor.com)
kiravuo@kampi.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) (08/31/89)
In article <56868@aerospace.AERO.ORG> lubofsky@aerospace.aero.org (Nick Lubofsky) writes: >Wouldn't all people recognize this? > O > --+-- > | > / \ Yes, a biped with one leg in cast up to his waist? Or maybe a pregnant woman with hanging breasts? :-) You are using the special characters that are translated to Scandinavian ones on my terminal. Vertical bar is a o with dots and backslash is a capital O with dots on. (See soc.culture.nordic for details.) So you can not even trust ASCII. In my opinion this debate has showed us that it is bloody difficult to design universal icons. At the best you can achieve something that _most_ people understand, but not all. Also understanding depends much on the observers cultural background. So now you have a good excuse for travelling; "Look boss, if we want to capture the Tasmanian market I just have to go there and see which way they have the arrows on highways." And an anecdote. A washing powder company was advertising in some Arabian country. They had billboards showing a dirty cloth on the left, cloth in water with washing powder in the middle and a shining white cloth in the right-hand picture. Unfortunately Arabian is read from right to left... -- Timo Kiravuo Helsinki University of Technology, Computing Center work: 90-451 4328, home: 90-676 076 kiravuo@hut.fi sorvi::kiravuo kiravuo%hut.fi@uunet.uu.net
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) (09/03/89)
Unfortunately, icons drawn from universal, physical, things tend to be very
concrete, while the kinds of things we presently do with computers tend to
very abstract. At the very least, they are verbs, which require demonstration,
which requires expression over time, which is not the strong point of icons.
In Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", one of his satires describes a society of
intellectuals who speak to each other with objects, and as a result have to
carry a lot of them around in bags on their backs. They don't get much done.
Of course it is very difficult also to find reliable universals. I rather
like the idea of facial expressions, but beyond that, when we get into
gestures, and especially cultural dependencies like clocks and mailboxes,
we get into trouble.
What if there was already a quite large, totally standardized, universal body
of icons that was guaranteed to uniquely and unambiguously identify any
abstract term or verb we needed? What if it were also possible to form
'icon sentences', again in a relatively standard way, that could be
interpreted as actions, statements, or instructions ? What if one-quarter of
the world's population already knew it ?
Well, it does exist and it's called Chinese. Yes, I know it's been said
before, but I for one would be *very glad* to learn Chinese characters, which
in fact only has to be done once per lifetime, than learn a dozen stupid icons
every time I fire up a new Mac, Sun, or NeXT application. The fact is, it's
*easier* to learn Chinese than do this again, over and over, dozens of times.
Of course, this is more like the midway point between what we understand icons
to be, and what we understand written language to be. Perhaps the Chinese
will ultimately adapt better to these ideas, as the Japanese seem already
to be doing.
However, there is one problem. The Chinese characters are used extensively
in some other languages, most notably Japanese, and don't always keep their
original meanings. Furthermore, in China and Japan these characters would
be recognized as text and would need to be set off or outlined in some way
to distinguish them as control labels. All the same, it seems a quite
supportable approach.
However, I think ultimately an icon will have to very directly capture
the operation it symbolizes. If an icon is going to *shrink* something,
I want to see a simple object *before* and *after* the operation in the
icon, perhaps in different colors. So I see a big square in red on top
of a smaller square in blue. For *copy*, I see two red circles on top
of one blue circle. This helps to alleviate the problem of having to
demonstrate the action, though of course ultimately that could be done too.
Craig Hubley -------------------------------------
Craig Hubley & Associates "Lead, follow, or get out of the way"
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca -------------------------------------
craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu mnetor!utgpu!craig@uunet.UU.NET
{allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax,mnetor!utcsri}!utgpu!craig craig@utorgpu.bitnet
--
Craig Hubley -------------------------------------
Craig Hubley & Associates "Lead, follow, or get out of the way"
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca -------------------------------------
craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu mnetor!utgpu!craig@uunet.UU.NET
{allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax,mnetor!utcsri}!utgpu!craig craig@utorgpu.bitnetthom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (09/04/89)
If Craig thinks that learning chinese is easier than learning a few new icons then craig has never tried to learn Chinese. ALL ideograms/pictograms in chinese have multiple meanings and there is no assurance that any 2 chinese people will get the same meaning from the same group of characters. Classical chinese is even more difficult than the revised characters. English is a very linear left brain language; chinese is more acoustic and right brain. Whole new set of problems arise. There is no alphabet in chinese. Forget Pynyin, that is a western wet dream. Now Japanese is another story. Not 1 but 2 alphabets, and then 2000+ kanji. They cover the right brain and the left brain. Often stroke victims will lose the power of the alphabets or the kanji but not usually both. You don't learn characters in japanese or chinese 'just once.' If you don't use them you lose them ... and have to learn them over and over, just like any language. Talk to the Chinese who are going to school in this country and have their kids here. The kids forget the language very quickly and it poses serious problems for them when they get back home. Believe it or not but the stupid icons on a Mac or Sun are easier to use or learn than chinese, try it! --Thom Gillespie
foessmei@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Reinhard Foessmeier) (09/05/89)
In article <768@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> norman@cogsci.UUCP (Donald A Norman-UCSD Cog Sci Dept) writes: > > ... >Shepard and Hurwitz argue that "because our standard viewpoint is >somewhat elevated above the generally horizontal surface of the >ground, two points (A and B) on a path leading away in front of us >project onto an intervening vertical plane with the farther point B, >above the nearer point A. ... Thus, there is ... a natural >correspondence between the forward direction ... and the upward >direction" En la subter-fervojaj vagonoj A few years ago, in the Munich en Munkeno antaw kelkaj jaroj underground/subway cars there used estis du malsamaj planoj de la to be two different maps of the subtera reto: unu montris ^gin underground network: One as seen de-supre kaj unu de-sube (spegul- from above and one as seens from below inverse)! Oni tamen forigis la (side-inverted). They took away this de-suban lastan jaron. Mi ^ciam one last year, however. I always trovis ^gin konfuza, sed founs it somewhat confusing, but in efektive legante la mapon oni fact you had to be below ground level ja trovi^gis sub la tero, to read it, so you were partly under do parte sub la fervoj-reto. the network, too. ^Cu ie tiaj inversaj planoj estas Are there any useful applications for utiligataj? such inverted maps? Reinhard F\"ossmeier, Technische Univ. M\"unchen | Vivu foessmeier@infovax.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de | la gefiloj [ { relay.cs.net | unido.uucp } ] | de niaj gepatroj!
gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) (09/06/89)
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) writes: >What if there was already a quite large, totally standardized, universal body >of icons that was guaranteed to uniquely and unambiguously identify any >abstract term or verb we needed? What if it were also possible to form >'icon sentences', again in a relatively standard way, that could be >interpreted as actions, statements, or instructions ? What if one-quarter of >the world's population already knew it ? >Well, it does exist and it's called Chinese. Yes, I know it's been said >before, but I for one would be *very glad* to learn Chinese characters, which >in fact only has to be done once per lifetime, than learn a dozen stupid icons >every time I fire up a new Mac, Sun, or NeXT application. The fact is, it's >*easier* to learn Chinese than do this again, over and over, dozens of times. Great idea -- It'll never catch on. Such a flexible, useful set of icons would be a sure winner to become a standard world language. Standard languages are associated with cultural imperialism. Therefore almost every country on the planet would vehemently oppose it. If a sophisticated but teensy little area such as Europe cannot agree on a single language then what chance do the rest of us have? On the other hand if you are going to restrict yourself to use on computers, then Chinese is probably not the way to go. Why not head for the language which the vast majority of computer users already speak -- English? Thus sending us back to where we started from. Or if you insist on icons why not just issue yet another Standard?. Actually, for all I know, this might be happening. Does anyone know if an ANSI standard set of icons exists? Is such a set planned? If not, should we begin creating a set of standard icons and submit the set to the various standards organisations? (Sorry this posting only goes to comp.cog-eng but the other two groups in the original posting aren't accessible from here) Gary -- Gary Corby (Friend of Elvenkind) Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: gary@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary
timd@sunray.UUCP (Tim Dudley) (09/07/89)
In article <KIRAVUO.89Aug31115445@kampi.hut.fi> kiravuo@kampi.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) writes: > >And an anecdote. A washing powder company was advertising in some >Arabian country. They had billboards showing a dirty cloth on the >left, cloth in water with washing powder in the middle and a >shining white cloth in the right-hand picture. Unfortunately >Arabian is read from right to left... >-- and another one - apparently Gerber Baby foods contributed a fair amount of food to the CARE program several years ago, and couldn't figure out why the baby food wasn't even being opened. Somebody finally discovered that is was because of the picture of the baby on the jar. The recipients knew that cans of beans had pictures of beans on the outside, cans of spinach had pictures of spinach, etc., and nobody would touch the jars with pictures of babies. -- Tim Dudley Cognos Incorporated (613) 738-1440 3755 Riverside Drive, P.O.Box 9707 uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!timd Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1G 3Z4
nobody@mimsy.UUCP (Nobody) (09/15/89)
Interaction Lab Keywords: From: don@brillig.umd.edu (Don Hopkins) Path: brillig.umd.edu!don Of course the arrows weren't universal icons, but how about a small circle or square as an icon for a point, or a long thin rectangle as an icon for a line segment? When you draw a line or a point on a piece of paper, or plot them on a screen, the marks you make have non-zero area -- they don't really look like the things they're supposed to represent. They're icons. Non-mathematically inclined hunter-gatherer types probably wouldn't recognize them, but intelligent space aliens might. Not good enough for you? Enclosed is the PostScript source for my universal icon for nothing, void, emptyness, space, or a blank sheet of paper. Print it out and enjoy it. -Don %! % nothing.ps: universal nothing icon % Copyright (C) 1989 by Don Hopkins % You may redistribute this freely, as long as you leave the copyright % message intact. showpage
rpb@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Brady) (09/21/89)
Isn't Chinese made up of 100 and some odd building blocks? The interactions between these would be in some sort of system. In other words you would only need memorize 100+ symbols and learn how they interact. Of course I've yet to see incomprehensible icons...
wlp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Walter Peterson) (09/21/89)
In article <10742@dasys1.UUCP>, rpb@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Brady) writes: > > Isn't Chinese made up of 100 and some odd building blocks? The interactions between these would be in some sort of system. > Chinese characters are indexed in character dictionaries by what are called "radicals", sequences of strokes (frequently characters in their own right) that make up other, more complex characters. The most common system for defining and ordering radicals has 214 index radicals. The remaining part of a complex character, called the "phonetic" since it give a clue (and clue only!) to the character's pronounciation, are not quite so regular. The phonetic portion may be composed of many strokes, some of which may be radicals, other characters or just strokes that convey no particular 'stand-alone' meaning. Learing the radicals is the first step to learning Chinese characters, but that alone is not sufficient. For example, the character for "river" is indexed by the radical for "water" and its phonetic part is the character for "work" (which is itself a radical, but in this case not the index radical). Now it may seem logical that a river is "water that does work", but that concept of working water can be mapped onto many other things; waterfalls, waves, rapids, etc. Many characters (probably most) don't have nice, logical explainations like "river". In any case, any "meaning" that the "system" of characters may have is one that is imposed from outside the system by the human observer and not contained in any systematic formation rules. -- Walt Peterson. Prime - San Diego R&D (Object and Data Management Group) "The opinions expressed here are my own."
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (09/23/89)
In article <10742@dasys1.UUCP> rpb@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Brady) writes: > Isn't Chinese made up of 100 and some odd building blocks? >The interactions between these would be in some sort of system. I thought of this a few years ago and spent a few minutes with a Chinese-to-English dictionary. The symbol for "computer" contained the symbol for "abacus", which contained the symbol for "bamboo". (I don't remember what symbols "bamboo" contained) It makes sense because bamboo is a common material used to make an abacus. But the purpose is not related to the material. And the relationship between an abacus and a computer is in the purpose. The relationships are not in a pattern which can be programmed to create the symbols from the roots. (reports of computers which contain bamboo will be enjoyed but otherwise ignored :-) -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.