dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/13/89)
CROSS-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF ICONS
Last week, I was discussing some issues of human computer interface design
with a non-academic, computer-using professional. I was talking about
icons, and how they might reduce some cross-linguistic technology-transfer
difficulties. We talked a little about the fact that some hand gestures which
are positive in our Angloamerican culture are obscene in some others. Then, as
a "good" example of icons, I started to talk about the "thermometer" icons that
appear on 'salsa' jars and other Mexican food packages in US supermarkets.
"Now there's an icon that needs no explanation, a really good one!", I was about
to say, when I realized that it might not "work" at all for a Spanish speaker
with no knowledge of English. Temperature, the quality that thermometers
measure, is represented by the "caliente-frio" axis in Spanish. But the
property of the sauce or other product that is being communicated is
described by "picante" in Spanish. English-speakers probably accept the
thermometer for spiciness without thinking, because we use "hot" to describe
both properties. Perhaps a Spanish-speaker with no English would not even see
a connection betweem "picante" and "caliente", and thus the icon would appear
to be a serving temperature recommendation, or make no sense at all.
It seemed like a neat example of cross-linguistic differences having an
influence on non-linguistic, iconic, communication as well. Reactions?
________________________________________________________________________________
David M. Mark, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Department of Geography, SUNY at Buffalo
dmark@cs.buffalo.edumatt@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Matthew McGranaghan) (08/14/89)
In article <9268@cs.Buffalo.EDU> "CROSS-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF ICONS",
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) points out an interesting feature of icons.
Not only must the graphic be recognizable, distinguishable and memorable -
it must use an analogy with which the user can connect. The example of
temperature and spicy-ness being related in English through the common
word "hot" is a good one.
In designing an icon for the geographic information system (GIS) function
often called "spread" several strategies could be taken, each using
a different analogy. The icon could represent the end product of the function
pictorially. In a simple form, the function returns the distance of all cells
in a raster from some set of specified cells - like the distances of all
points to the nearest road. One representation might be an isoline map of
distances from a road. Another slightly different approach might be more
process oriented(reinforciing the functional nature of spread) and show
essentially two images; one the original road and (in cultures which read left
to right) to the right an image of the isoline map. These icons each use
the nature of the function to build the analogy. A lingisticlly based
approach could be so abstract as to use the word "spread" to represent the
function (or an "S"). Alternatively, and still linguistic at root, one might
show a jar of peanut butter (or Cheez-Wiz, or whatever) and a knife SPREADing
a dollop of the stuff on a piece of bread or a cracker.
The later may make a very recognizable symbol just for its being different,
but its utiliity seems to depend on people being familiar with the term
'spread" having two meanings.
It also seems that there would be an advantage to those liguistic analogies
which depend on basic level terms, if only out of accessibility.
Reactions?
--
matt@uhccux Matt McGranaghan, Geography Dept
matt@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu U of Hawaii, 2424 Maile Way
{ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!uhccux!matt Honolulu, HI 96822
matt%uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu@rutgers.edu 808/948-8465bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) (08/15/89)
In article <4560@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> matt@uhccux.UUCP (Matthew McGranaghan) writes: >In article <9268@cs.Buffalo.EDU> "CROSS-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF ICONS", >dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) points out an interesting feature of icons. > ... >Reactions? After CHI '88 I had to keep reminding myself that the 'I' stands for Interaction, not Interface. After CHI '89 it seemed to have been further refined to Icon. I have been immersed in the same culture as the Mac interface designers, but it was not immediately apparent to me that a house means go back to the beginning, and I use a magnifying glass to enlarge or expand, not search. At the Wang "freestyle" exhibit, I was having a lot of fun with this new toy, but was having some problems using the "buttons" at the top of the screen. I thought that they were an abstraction of a cassette player or VCR panel. One of the developers (about 25 years old, I'm 38) informed me that they were patterned after the controls of a CD player which allows one to switch from track to track. "Oh," I said. "Like an 8-track cartridge player!" "A what?" he replied. An anesthesiologist at the same convention told me of a piece of electronic hardware which had on the back panel, above a socket for a cable, a picture of a heart with the international slashed-circle over it. After querying the manufacturer he found out that this means electrically isolated --no shock to the heart. Are band-saws user-friendly? Let's stop designing for tyros. ---------------- Brad Sherman <bks@alfa.berkeley.edu>
gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) (08/18/89)
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > CROSS-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF ICONS > [deleted]... Then, as >a "good" example of icons, I started to talk about the "thermometer" icons that >appear on 'salsa' jars and other Mexican food packages in US supermarkets. >"Now there's an icon that needs no explanation, a really good one!", I was about >to say, when I realized that it might not "work" at all for a Spanish speaker >with no knowledge of English.... [deleted] The problem perhaps is not so much cross-linguistic as cross-cultural. It is interesting to look at Europe. They get by in public places with very large, very obvious signs. Without speaking a word of the language you can pick up virtually all the information a stranger might want and this is in a place where the differing languages have some contradictory idioms (stating the time comes to mind). The icons work there because the people share a common everyday lifestyle. When the thermometer was first mentioned in the article I thought it was used to indicate the temperature at which the product should be stored. It wasn't until spices were mentioned that I realised the truth. I have never seen a thermometer icon used to indicate spiciness. I _have_ seen them indicating storage temperature. Despite the fact we share the same language (almost :-) ) I misunderstood an icon. The piece of culture we don't share is US supermarkets. If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. I have a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a universal icon? -- Gary Corby (Friend of Elvenkind) Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: gary@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary
andrew@berlioz (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) (08/19/89)
In article <1985@softway.oz>, gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: > If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have > to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. I > have a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist > an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a > universal icon? I'm not sure anybody has yet been tasked with writing software with the alien market in mind (-:), but since I'm a resident alien in the US, I probably partially qualify.. . .. ... ; digital maths package that's all i have. nanu nanu -- ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray!
tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) (08/20/89)
In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: >> >>dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: >> >> >>> CROSS-LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF ICONS >> >>> [deleted]... Then, as >>>a "good" example of icons, I started to talk about the "thermometer" icons that >>>appear on 'salsa' jars and other Mexican food packages in US supermarkets. >>>"Now there's an icon that needs no explanation, a really good one!", I was about >> >>When the thermometer was first mentioned in the article I thought it was used to >>indicate the temperature at which the product should be stored. It wasn't >>until spices were mentioned that I realised the truth. I have never seen >>a thermometer icon used to indicate spiciness. I _have_ seen them indicating >>storage temperature. Despite the fact we share the same language (almost :-) ) >>an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a >>universal icon? I contend that from a "theory of language" point of view that the concept of a "universal icon" cannot exist. Here's why. An icon is nothing more or less than a symbol for a concept. As we are well aware from the study of language (verbal and otherwise) a symbol can only represent the concept which the user applies to it. If two people who do not agree on the referant for a particular symbol attempt to communicate using that symbol, communication becomes impossible. Even symbols representing supposedly universal concepts (as can be found in physics and mathematics) are still symbols, and their use pre-supposes that both the sender and receiver agree on the referant (remember, the symbol is not the referant). The folks who sent out out Galactic calling card (was it Voyager?) fought with this idea, and came up with symbols they felt would be as universal as possible. They were visual in nature (thus arguably could be called icons) as well as physical representations of sound (in the form of some sort of a phonograph record). It is interesting to note, however, that even on this planet many, many people who saw these symbols and heard the recording could not figure out what was being communicated. (Carl Sagan, if you or any of your students, or anyone else who worked on this project are listening, this would be a good time to get your two cents in). Without first finding a language independent "map" with which to map a a set of universal symbols to their appropriate referants, I do not believe that a "universal symbol" can exist. Comments? Tom
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/20/89)
In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: >If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have >to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. I >have a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist >an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a >universal icon? I think the one for "explosion hazard" is probably fairly universal; you have to make some fairly drastic assumptions to make it incomprehensible. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (08/21/89)
In article <1989Aug20.005726.27233@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: >>If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have >>to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. I >>have a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist >>an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a >>universal icon? > >I think the one for "explosion hazard" is probably fairly universal; you >have to make some fairly drastic assumptions to make it incomprehensible. My vote for possible universal icon word be the christian cross. How many cities around the word do you think do not have one sticking up in the air somewhere? True universal icons are an impossibility, much as a true universal language -- same problems. --Thom
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/21/89)
In article <30767@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: >In article <1989Aug20.005726.27233@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: >>>If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have >>>to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. This is a very good way to think about it, as long as the aliens had body structures very similar to ours, and their planet had similar characteristics. I put those constraints on because I think George Lakoff had the right idea when he interpreted Rosch's "basic-level" categories as arising from the way we and our bodies and senses interact with the environment of this planet. (At least, that's how *I* interpret George's interpretation!) >>>I have >>>a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist >>>an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a >>>universal icon? >> >>I think the one for "explosion hazard" is probably fairly universal; you >>have to make some fairly drastic assumptions to make it incomprehensible. > >My vote for possible universal icon word be the christian cross. How many >cities around the word do you think do not have one sticking up in the air >somewhere? True universal icons are an impossibility, much as a true universal >language -- same problems. > >--Thom The Christian cross is *NOT* at all the sort of thing that I was looking for, or thinking of, in that it (presumably) would have meant nothing to someone 2500 years ago, or to the Dani in New Guinea on first European contact this century. The "meaning" of the cross, which presumably *is* one of the most widely-recognized icons, probably is not at all "natural", but has to be learned. The explosion hazard one probably does have wide inherent meaning. How about the International negation icon, the red circle with diagonal bar? I wonder if that makes sense to most people the first time they see it? David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (08/21/89)
In article <9446@cs.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@sunybcs.UUCP (David Mark) writes: > The Christian cross is *NOT* at all the sort of thing that I was looking for, > or thinking of, in that it (presumably) would have meant nothing to someone > 2500 years ago, or to the Dani in New Guinea on first European contact this > century. The "meaning" of the cross, which presumably *is* one of the most > widely-recognized icons, probably is not at all "natural", but has to be > learned. The explosion hazard one probably does have wide inherent > meaning. How about the International negation icon, the red circle with > diagonal bar? I wonder if that makes sense to most people the first time > they see it? > >David Mark What sense does make to worry about 'anyone' 2500 years ago? Meaning comes from context and culture ... I didn't understand the international recognition symbol the first time I saw it. For that matter I didn't recognize it as any thing, it had no meaning or even existence until the meaning was pointed out to me. Modern artists often exploit the fact that a perfectly recognizable object in an unusual situation often becomes abstract to the observer, e.g. Duchamp's Urinal by R. Mutt called god. I agree that the 'cross' icon is learned but how could you imagine that the international symbol for negation is 'natural'. To me it seems totally un-natural and prefabricated. I don't think that there are any natural icons anymore than there are natural languages that make sense to most people the first time they hear them. Do you think that the cave dwellers recognized the Bison drawn on the wall the first time it was drawn. Some probably did, others had to be educated. My guess is that the bison was probably one of the first icons wo/man produced. But even that icon only had meaning and recognition within the context of grassy plains people. --Thom
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/21/89)
In article <30778@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: > >What sense does make to worry about 'anyone' 2500 years ago? Meaning comes from >context and culture ... I certainly agree that 'context and culture' dominate the meaningfulness of things. But does *ALL* meaning come from context and culture, or does some come from the way our senses and bodies interact with the world? > I didn't understand the international recognition >symbol the first time I saw it. For that matter I didn't recognize it as any >thing, it had no meaning or even existence until the meaning was pointed out to >me. Modern artists often exploit the fact that a perfectly recognizable object >in an unusual situation often becomes abstract to the observer, e.g. Duchamp's >Urinal by R. Mutt called god. > >I agree that the 'cross' icon is learned but how could you imagine that the >international symbol for negation is 'natural'. To me it seems totally >un-natural and prefabricated. I can very very easily imagine that the international negation symbol is 'natural'. It seems to me that it might be quite 'natural' in almost all cultures that "crossing something out" would be a way of negating it. (Do the cave drawings ahev some evidence of this?) If that is true, then the next question is whether the circle-and-bar icon 'naturally' 'means' crossing something out. I would guess that the meaning of the drawing- line-through-means-cancelling-or-negating-or-forbidding is widesspread if not universal, whereas the red-circle-with-diagonal-bar-means-drawing- a-line-through is much less automatic. Does anyone know if the design of that symbol was a conscious effort (and if so, was it written up), or whether it was just a good idea that caught on? > I don't think that there are any natural icons >anymore than there are natural languages that make sense to most people the >first time they hear them. > >--Thom David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/21/89)
Interesting question.
Be certain to let the anthropologists at the Dept. of Energy know
if something can be decided definitively, they have a few piles of
nuclear waste they want to protect for a few millenia. 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.bro@titan.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) (08/22/89)
In article <30767@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
# My vote for possible universal icon word be the christian cross. How many
# cities around the word do you think do not have one sticking up in the air
# somewhere?
Hmm. Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia, to name two.
# True universal icons are an impossibility, much as a true universal
# language -- same problems.
From some of my foreign friends' reactions to things I take for granted,
I would say this is trivially true. Icons, like language, must be learned.
But, if you keep the size of the iconic vocabulary down, icons could be
learned more quickly, I believe. Make them obvious and direct, not
reliant on analogy or language-based nuances. (Thermometers would make
better icons for temperature-related matters. The icon for spiciness I
have seen on Mexican picante sauce is a little white graduated chile pepper.
As spiciness is increased, more of the pepper is colored.)
Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu)
Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.kiravuo@kampi.hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) (08/22/89)
In article <9458@cs.Buffalo.EDU> dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > I can very very easily imagine that the international negation > symbol is 'natural'. It seems to me that it might be quite > 'natural' in almost all cultures that "crossing something out" > would be a way of negating it. I am not too sure about that. When I was a foreign exchange student in the US, we had to mark some tests. I caused small disturbance by using the Finnish symbols, which conflict with the USAmerican ones. In Finland we mark a correct answer with a slash with two dots, a little bit like the percentage mark (historical reasons). A wrong answer is marked with a V, for the Finnish word meaning false. So my right marks looked like crosses and my wrong marks like check-marks. According to my knowledge the slash with two dots comes from the way books about people were kept in the church. A slash marked a person who could read a tiny bit, a slash with two dots a person who could somewhat read and a cross person who could really read. Since a diagonal cross is used as a check mark, the %-like looking marks was later used at schools to mark a correct answer. But a diagonal cross _over_ something is considered a negation sign here, too. The red disk with horizontal bar does not however mean so much a negation to me as a forbidden direction. I might always consider going around one. So the universal icons are really a problem. -- 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
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/22/89)
In article <6531@stiatl.UUCP> tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) writes: >The folks who sent out out Galactic calling card (was it Voyager?) fought >with this idea, and came up with symbols they felt would be as universal >as possible. They were visual in nature (thus arguably could be called >icons) as well as physical representations of sound (in the form of some >sort of a phonograph record). It is interesting to note, however, that >even on this planet many, many people who saw these symbols and heard >the recording could not figure out what was being communicated. (Carl Sagan, >if you or any of your students, or anyone else who worked on this project >are listening, this would be a good time to get your two cents in). >Comments? Rightfully, it should be noted that Pioneers 10 and 11 had the first "calling cards." They consisted of simple plaques: Man, Woman (both naked), solar system, a "pulsar" map, hydrogen molecule, etc. If you could only image the uproar by Christian groups, feminists, and lawyers ("Purient interest," "Sexist," "How do you know they aren't hostile?"). See the book Murmurs from Earth by Sagan et al. for discussion on earthly icons. Carl read netnews? Ha! Also, if you know a better way, there are a lot of people interested in knowing. (Short of clothed human icons, Paul Conrad of the LA Times did a good one). 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: Ex-Voyager Program member "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.
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (08/22/89)
In article <6531@stiatl.UUCP> tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) writes: > >The folks who sent out out Galactic calling card (was it Voyager?) fought >with this idea, and came up with symbols they felt would be as universal >as possible. They were visual in nature (thus arguably could be called >icons) as well as physical representations of sound (in the form of some >sort of a phonograph record). It is interesting to note, however, that >even on this planet many, many people who saw these symbols and heard >the recording could not figure out what was being communicated. ... I realize that we think of 'icon' as pictorial but it doesn't seem that we have to. It might be useful to expand the idea to sound, smell, taste or touch. I mean after all icon originally meant a sacred image until it was secularized. But why not an iconic sound. I'll bet the iconic sound of a wolf in the woods at midnight with you in the quallofil has a similar impact on an awful lot of people regardless of their language ... or the sound of a rattle snake in the dark.I first met a ratle snake on a desert road in the dark five years ago ... every inch of me except for my brain knew what was 2 feet away from me. After I untangled myself from my bike which I feel backwards over I realized what almost happened. I think that in the west ( where I live) we over emphasis our visual information. For universal icons I vote for wolf and rattle smake sounds and maybe brown bear smell in early spring on Kodiak Island. These I consider natural. --Thom
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (08/22/89)
In article <6531@stiatl.UUCP> tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) writes: > >I contend that from a "theory of language" point of view that the concept >of a "universal icon" cannot exist. Here's why. > >An icon is nothing more or less than a symbol for a concept. As we are well >aware from the study of language (verbal and otherwise) a symbol can only >represent the concept which the user applies to it. If two people who do not >agree on the referant for a particular symbol attempt to communicate using >that symbol, communication becomes impossible. > >Even symbols representing supposedly universal concepts (as can be found in >physics and mathematics) are still symbols, and their use pre-supposes that >both the sender and receiver agree on the referant (remember, the symbol is >not the referant). My impression is that the theory of language as arbitrary symbol manipulation is passe. I certainly susbscribe to the Rosch-Lakoff-Johnson model of categories, congition, and language. The idea is that our perception and cognition is highly influenced by a fairly small set of cognitive image- schemata that provide 'top-down' structure to sesory inputs. As I said in an earlier posting, my interpretation of Lakoff & Johnson's 'experiential realism' is that meanings arise largely out of the ways our bodies and senses interact with the real world. If this is so, then we could expect at least a few concepts, such as the container schema (inside/outside) and the up-is-more schema, to be universal or nearly so. Now to design icons that represent and/or invoke/trigger the same image schemata as some target concept in our image-schemata for the real world-- there's a challenge!! > >Without first finding a language independent "map" with which to map a >a set of universal symbols to their appropriate referants, I do not believe >that a "universal symbol" can exist. > >Comments? > >Tom The cognitive image-schemata discussed by Johnson and Lakoff seem like possible candidates for this 'map'. David Mark dmark@cs.buffalo.edu
tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko) (08/22/89)
In article <4795@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >>earthly icons. Carl read netnews? Ha! Also, if you know a better way, >>there are a lot of people interested in knowing. (Short of clothed >>human icons, Paul Conrad of the LA Times did a good one). >> If I knew a better way, I would not have the opinion previously stated... and would be trying to get NASA to hire me as a consultant for the big bucks... (sigh) not this year... Tom -- Tom Wiencko (w) (404) 977-4515 gatech!stiatl!tom Wiencko & Associates, Inc.
timd@sunray.UUCP (Tim Dudley) (08/23/89)
>In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: >>If you are interested in creating universal icons then you are going to have >>to design them with aliens from another planet in mind as your readers. I >>have a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist >>an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a >>universal icon? > I can suggest a universally lousy one - maybe we only get it in bilingual Canada. However, the icon in question is on the highway signs and looks roughly like ___ | | | ? | |___| | | | """""""""""" I finally realized that the reason this doesn't work is that all the other roadside icons (tents, dinner place settings, ferries, gas pumps) show what you'll find when you get there. The ? tells you what you have to take there to get what you want. What's really ironic about this is that this is the icon for "information". Now. There's me, and there's the guys who "designed" this icon. Which one is the alternate culture? -- 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
garym@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Murphy) (08/23/89)
An icon like the red circle and cross-bar might be readily understood
wherever there are cars, but I think that's more due to the origins of
the automobile than anything transcendental; if you buy the cars from
the U.S. or Europe, chances are, your government will buy the road
signs from the same place. As for the New Guinea natives, how about
the universal sign - that's the one with a long, flowing 'C' followed
by three letters, two of them vowels, a space, a different, more
contracted 'C' and the letters o-l-a :-).
Forget universal symbols - how many years did Jung search for just the
same only to arrive at a tentative list of very abstract notions. Even
the Egyptians dissagreed as to whether the solar disk signified the
apparent orb or the force that drives it.
For an issue in cog-eng, I'd think that the criteria should suit the
animal - people are very intelligent, especially with symbols (how
many different word-processing keystroke vocabularies do YOU know).
The trick is not to get it right the first time, but to design the
software attached to the button to be forgiving of novice attempts.
If the process is dangerous, try to outline the consequences (very
difficult if you want to stick to icons) or at the very least,
provide good recovery/abort controls. If the process is clear, have
no fear that the operator will learn WHATEVER symbol you use.
--
Gary Murphy - Cognos Incorporated - (613) 738-1338 x5537
3755 Riverside Dr - P.O. Box 9707 - Ottawa Ont - CANADA K1G 3N3
e-mail: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!garym
Cosmic Irreversibility: 1 pot T -> 1 pot P, 1 pot P /-> 1 pot Tdsr@stl.stc.co.uk (David Riches) (08/23/89)
In article <30767@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes:
# My vote for possible universal icon word be the christian cross. How many
# cities around the word do you think do not have one sticking up in the air
# somewhere?
I doubt that African tribes or Central American Rain Forest tribes
know about it. If you tried out your icons on these sort of 'lost'
tribes I'm sure you'll find that the meaning of an icon is dependant
on culture; environment; upbringing and learning.
Dave Riches
PSS: dsr@stl.stc.co.uk
ARPA: dsr%stl.stc.co.uk@earn-relay.ac.uk
Smail: Software Design Centre, (Dept. 103, T2 West),
STC Technology Ltd., London Road,
Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA. England
Phone: +44 (0)279-29531 x2496eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/26/89)
So what did we learn from this little look at what some people thought
were universal icons? (Besides the fact there appear to be none.)
Was it the lack of experience of the posters?
Was it a bit of short-sightedness? Or confined perspectives?
What patterns of thinking did we find?
Was there a time-dependence such as the arrow keys (depended on
a progression)?
What did we learn?
The power of science (and engineering) comes from generality.
There has been some knowledge from things like "universal taboos" like
incest. Where did these guys go wrong?
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.gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) (08/30/89)
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) writes: >I realize that we think of 'icon' as pictorial but it doesn't seem that we have >to. It might be useful to expand the idea to sound, smell, taste or touch. I >mean after all icon originally meant a sacred image until it was secularized. >But why not an iconic sound. I'll bet the iconic sound of a wolf in the woods at midnight with you in the quallofil has a similar impact on an awful lot of >people regardless of their language ... or the sound of a rattle snake in the >dark. ...[deleted]... >I think that in the west ( where I live) we over emphasis our >visual information. For universal icons I vote for wolf and rattle smake sounds and maybe brown bear smell in early spring on Kodiak Island. These I consider >natural. >--Thom They're certainly natural sounds but they aren't universal even among humans. If I were walking through the bush and heard a rattle I would have to assume there was a wild baby on the loose. There aren't many rattle snakes around Sydney. The idea of something other than a visual icon is good, but I'm not sure I'd go for an audio icon. What if some of your audience is deaf? For that matter, what if some of them are blind? There is however one sense which is almost impossible to lose without at the same time becoming a corpse -- touch. In fact, it is probably the one sense you can hope to have remain reasonably constant across species. Therefore I propose that the closest possible thing to a universal icon is barbed wire. It means, "Stay Away". Gary -- Gary Corby (Friend of Elvenkind) Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: gary@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary
ok@.cs.mu.oz (Richard O'Keefe) (08/30/89)
In article <9446@cs.Buffalo.EDU>, dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) writes: > In article <30767@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: > >In article <1989Aug20.005726.27233@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>In article <1985@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Friend of Elvenkind) writes: > >>>I have > >>>a feeling that for every icon useful to your own culture there will exist > >>>an alternate culture which would not understand it. Can anyone suggest a > >>>universal icon? > >>I think the one for "explosion hazard" is probably fairly universal; you > >>have to make some fairly drastic assumptions to make it incomprehensible. > The Christian cross is *NOT* at all the sort of thing that I was looking for, > or thinking of, in that it (presumably) would have meant nothing to someone > 2500 years ago, or to the Dani in New Guinea on first European contact this > century. The explosion hazard one probably does have wide inherent > meaning. I'm afraid I don't know what the explosion hazard icon looks like. I would point out that someone 2500 years ago would almost certainly never have seen an explosion. You can't have a universal icon whose referent is not universal. One way of looking for "universal" icons is to look at ancient writing systems and see if you can pick up what a symbol stands for before you look at the answer. For example, in both Egyptian and Sumerian, the sign for "woman" is a picture of the female genitals, which is reasonably universal. Two possible universal icons would be a ripple for water and a lightning bolt for "something to do with lightning, possibly dangerous".