dbruck@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM (Don Bruck@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM) (08/25/89)
I think that it is interesting that we can consider anything to be universal. All of the examples that I have seen in this discussion work on the basis that people have intuitive knowledge, that we begin life with a set of values and, therefore, we can all understand the same icons. Take for example the thermometer/chili on the Mexican food container. That assumes that a) thermometers are used in the local culture because temperature is socially significant. In an area with very consistent temperatures, the meaning of temperature may be mixed with the meanings for daylight/darkness. Also, the idea that certain sounds are "dangerous" means that all listeners have placed a situational value on a sound, i.e. that rattling is dangerous. This assumes that the person involved, at a minimum, has heard of rattlesnakes, otherwise there is no reason to connect the sound with imminent danger. The acceptance of icons, including the circle-slash, is the acceptance of one set of cultural symbols by members of separate cultures. They are language and must be learned by the users. As such, icons cannot be automatically universal but can be multi-cultural because of similarities in the connected cultures. --Don All opinions are my own except when specifically claimed by my employeer.
emoffatt@sunray.UUCP (Eric Moffatt) (08/30/89)
It occurs to me that one truly universal symbol would be the image of a human being. An icon indicating which path to take should contain a RECOGNIZABLE image of the paths (from the point of view of a person looking at the icon) with the image of a human being walking down one of them. The reasoning is that the icon contains two recognizable PHYSICAL referents; the paths and the person. The relationship depicted in the icon represents the desired physical relationship (eg. walk down the path). The minimum number of cognitive steps are needed to translate the icon's components because no "symbols" are used. A stick figure image of a person requires "interpretation" in order to be recognized as a human being while an accurate image is simply recognized. If the viewer of an icon has unique recognizable PHYSICAL analogs visible from the icon viewer's location then the icon's components are interpretable regardless of culture. What is, is. The interpretation of the relationship is then left as a trivial excersize to the viewer of the icon ;-). Note that icons of this type are not really that useful 'cause each icon must be designed for each specific use and should be as accurate as possible (a photo ?). The question here is: "Are they universal??" I guess that the more general an icon, the more stylized the symbology used to create it, the more cognitive steps needed to interpret it and the more likely that one of these cognitive steps is unknown in a given culture (eg. Red circle/slash). Comments ?? -- Eric (Pixel Pusher) Moffatt - Cognos Incorporated: 3755 Riverside Drive Voice: (613)738-1440 (Research) FAX: (613)738-0002 P.O. Box 9707 uucp: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!emoffatt Ottawa, Ontario, arpa/internet: emoffatt%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net CANADA K1G 3Z4
garym@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Murphy) (08/30/89)
Proposition: Universal Icons are made, not born.
In all this discussion over universal icons, we seem oblivious to
those 'popular' icons all around us - in most cases, these are
hardly 'iconic' at all in the sense of containing an optimum
balance of completeness and visual simplicity, the goal of the
byzantine artists. Like the plethora of 'wordstar'-like editors,
our efforts are confounded when we try to place too much importance
on capturing the familiar cues, ignoring empirical evidence that it
is easier for humans to learn completely different sets of codes
than to learn a new set which intersects with our previous habits.
I'm reminded of an experiment designed to test geometric recognition
in rats: simple symbols, the circle, cross and square, were posted
one each on three doors, where the circle always denoted the food.
The rats failed miserably until someone noticed that rats look down,
not forward - Placing symbols on the floor dramatically improved the
creatures' performance. An icon, however designed, is still both a
cue (to our program 'food') and an abstract metaphor, or at best a
visual/cultural pun. The latter will always be invisible to those
who are not looking for it while the former is instantly apparent
only after the fact. Can you explain why the sad-eyed, nazarine man
who holds an open book lettered in greek has his other hand poised
in such a peculiar fashion? Every East-Orthodox Church has one of
these 'unique recognizable PHYSICAL analogs', yet the meaning is at
best unclear to all but the adepts.
I'm no expert in cognitive science, but I don't think our objective
is as much to produce universal, spontaneously interpretable icons
as it is to produce memorable logos. Looking at the media machine,
this suggests stylized, often abstract, but generally simple
images; Maybe this issue is better suited to comp.graphic-artists
than comp.cog-eng.
--
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 T