George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/17/91)
I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these are people, places, times and ideas. One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! George Bray CSIRO Division of Information Technology > Phone: +61 2 887 9307 PO Box 1599 North Ryde 2113 AUSTRALIA > Fax: +61 2 888 7787 Internet: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU > CompuServe: 72711,253
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) (06/19/91)
In <1991Jun17.111116.810@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these >are people, places, times and ideas. >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! Has it occured to you to try using the word ``thing''? That only makes sense if you speak English, but icons have a way of being equally incomprehensible to everyone. Are there no words at all in this interface? Only then would I get really worried about using an actual word. -- < Michael Pereckas <> m-pereckas@uiuc.edu <> Just another student... > "This desoldering braid doesn't work. What's this cheap stuff made of, anyway?" "I don't know, looks like solder to me."
mccool@dgp.toronto.edu (Michael McCool) (06/20/91)
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) writes: >>One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >>all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >>Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! How about a teapot? I may not be intuitive for the average user, but it IS a generic object, and computer folklore (in graphics, anyways), identifies it with a generic object. In Mathematics! (James Blinn), he uses as, "Take any object, say... a teapot...". This occurs again and again as a running gag. Michael McCool@dgp.utoronto.ca
hammy@ctt.bellcore.com (06/20/91)
newsgroups: comp.human-factors Well, if I had to come up with such an icon, it would be a box (showing fold lines on the sides, to make clear it is intended to be a container and not just an abstract entity), open at the top, with a question mark coming out. Of course, that depends on people recognizing the question mark character as representing an unknown. Also, of course, what I have just described could represent "gift", "package", or any number of other "things". Actually, I would expect that if you examined your application somewhat more carefully, you would realize that there are constraints imposed on the nature of "thing" by the application - I very much doubt that you really have a completely unconstrained choice here. If you do, then maybe, as someone else suggested, the word "thing" would be better. John. _____ John G. Smith email : hammy@ctt.bellcore.com RRC 1H-213 phone : (201) 699-4530
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun17.111116.810@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>, George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes... >I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these >are people, places, times and ideas. > >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! > Hi! George, May I suggest a coinage for "thing object", ie "thob" oir .. got a glitch on my system just then, let me try again ... .. got a glitch on my system just then, let me try again ... that is "thob" or "th'ob". As in, "that thob there is used to rotate the thingamabob next to it." Hmmm, maybe "thingamajig" works just as well. Enjoy =-) _ Stephen Tice _ (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu)
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (06/20/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these >are people, places, times and ideas. >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! Why not a totally blank icon? -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
georgerj@motcid.UUCP (Richard J. George) (06/20/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these >are people, places, times and ideas. >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! When learning OOD we used an amorphous blob to indicate an object, which is very simmilar to a thing. RJG >George Bray >CSIRO Division of Information Technology > Phone: +61 2 887 9307 >PO Box 1599 North Ryde 2113 AUSTRALIA > Fax: +61 2 888 7787 >Internet: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU > CompuServe: 72711,253
mig@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) (06/21/91)
In article <2040@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >>One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >>all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >>Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! > >Why not a totally blank icon? What do you mean? How would you see it if it is invisible? And how would you distinguish it from a blank icon? * * * * * * ====================== Meir Green * * * * * * ====================== (Internet) mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu * * * * * * ====================== meir@msb.com mig@asteroids.cs.columbia.edu * * * * * * ====================== (Amateur Radio) N2JPG
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) (06/21/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! Well, if a single icon won't get it .... ____ / __ \ _______ __ /_/ \ \ (______ / \__ ____ Stephen Tice ____ / / (__(_/\ (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) |_| (__) __ _ (_)__.' -< We are the Net >- |_|
burns@endor.uucp (John Burns) (06/21/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! Along the lines of the teapot someone suggested, how about an anvil, or some similar picture of a heavy object with no moving parts? I'm not quite sure if you want to convey the idea of (a) mystery object, for which the box with question mark might be best, (b) non-descript object, for which my idea is designed (or possibly just the blank box, as someone else mentioned), or (c) non-descript program, for which the hand-in-box might be best as it is a more active symbol. John A. Burns (burns@thurifer.harvard.edu, burns@huche1.bitnet)
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/21/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! Try this: Microsoft Windows icon: table `!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>? @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_ begin 644 thing.ico M```!``$`("`0``````#H`@``%@```"@````@````0`````$`!```````@`(`. M``````````````````````````````"```"`````@(``@````(``@`"`@```6 M@("``,#`P````/\``/\```#__P#_````_P#_`/__``#___\```````````<`( M``````````````````=W``````````````````=W=P````````````````=W) M=W<```````````````=W=W=W``````````````=W=W=WN[L```````````=W1 M=W=W=[N[``````````=W=W=W=W>[NP````````!W=W=W=W=WN[L`````````- M=W=W=W=W=W<``````````'=W=W=W=W=W``````````!W=W=W=W=WN[L`````( M````=W=W=W=W=[N[`````````'=W=W=W=W>[NP````````!W=W=W=W=WN[NPN M````````=W=W=W=W=WN[NP```````'=W=W=W=W=[N[NP``````!W=W=W=W=XJ MB+N[NP``````=W=W=W=XB(B(N[L``````'=W=W=XB(B(B(N[L`````!W=W=XF MB(B(B(B+N[B`````=W=XB(N[N(B(B[NXB(```'=XB(B+N[B(B(N[N(B(@`!X1 MB(B(B+N[B(B[NXB(B(B`!WB(B(B[N[N[N[N(B(B'<``'>(B(B[N[N[NXB(B'5 M<`````=XB(B[N[N[B(B'<```````!WB(B+N[B(B'<``````````'>(B(B(B'* M<`````````````=XB(B'<```````````````!WB'<``````````````````'D M<`````````#__G____@?___@!___@`'__@``?_@``!_@```'@````0``````T M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````````````"````!X```!_@``!_^``!__X`!___@!___^!____Y_? !__Y_V `` end sum -r/size 43316/1177 section (from "begin" to "end") sum -r/size 61034/766 entire input file Enlarged .GIF version: table `!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>? @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_ begin 644 thing.gif M1TE&.#=A8`!@`(,``````(````"``("`````@(``@`"`@("`@,#`P/\```#_` M`/__````__\`_P#______RP`````8`!@```$_E#(2:N].)_-L_]@*(X6UY%H^ MJJKFMK[PVQY(;<]QKI>M?;>[H&[FJ^&$2!&QR&0>D]#)LDE%/*/0:=4)Q.ZTX MVW#QZB6!Q6AR6=E#NXW=M>=<7=CO>/M;O:93\X`+>W%R$GY-@7F#)GUM:(F0] M@8LG0H=,D9AWDRY(ED69F9L'.9Z(H*=Z;W",**67J*>JJY0CKI^PH+)6A!BVU MIKBXNC^L%+ZOP+#"LYS%CKK(P<I/',J_D&*AU44`W-3:/ME;X=\(W`#>Y`CC/ M?YCI->8SZ&_KC^VRYOC=\32R]-CVJO+AV\=/E;\P![<(A$?0&;M(SP!664BQ[ MH4-KB2)"#$-QH443_O\V&I1(I:/`CP3=B2-9SJ1)E/M4UF'I\B5,8\KHU>QX+ M\Z/,&IEV"NUI\:<Z3$)W$FUH-&A2ETMO5G/ZM&94F%.15K5ZU6=.K5MM=NTYT M$U98J&/)/D1U5FQ:E&79MJWX]BJPN6CK+KV+EZ?>O;CZ^OW;4Z[@P81A&C[L) M,?'-Q8SS.?X(.?+)R0TK6QZ(F:#FS?HZQZ,*FJ[H&:1+7S[=(K5JSJQ-N'X=, M.O:&V;1MRP9+&[9NW*]U<P"N6OAMWKUK&^>0/.]RYLT1/S\07?KSZJ:G4\>^9 M6COW[K:)EUXN'C1YY,FEA$>OFD?L\HS=LX9_&$1G^F%3W&=?OQ5F_%N16*(7W M@"XE\1>!)ADX('_YE?%7?(6H5Q>$$0KP8'\5RD=46QF&T!6''7[PX5DA^H=2` K4B7"<!.**:ZPHE`M?K%/1S%F,2-%-2H8#XTY>@$=`#U6^&.0$0Y98@0`.P0`; `` end sum -r/size 30162/1044 section (from "begin" to "end") sum -r/size 16258/673 entire input file mathew [ I love drawing icons... ]
cah@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ceri Hopkins) (06/22/91)
In article <6646@opal1.UUCP> georgerj@motcid.UUCP (Richard J. George) writes: > George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: > > >I need to refer to various types of objects in my interface. Some of these > >are people, places, times and ideas. > > >One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, > >all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the > >Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! > > When learning OOD we used an amorphous blob to indicate an object, which > is very simmilar to a thing. > > RJG How do you represent an amorphous blob? Ceri -- ----- Ceri Hopkins Dept. of Computer Science cah@uk.ac.bham.cs University of Birmingham Tel. +44-21-414-3708
prisoner@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Allen S. Firstenberg) (06/22/91)
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) writes: >In <1991Jun17.111116.810@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >>This is hardly intuitive! This is exactly the problem that occurs with _ANY_ interface, but is particularly obvious with GUIs - how do you know that your graphical icon will mean something to the user. The answer - as far as I can tell - is that you can't. >Has it occured to you to try using the word ``thing''? That only >makes sense if you speak English, but icons have a way of being >equally incomprehensible to everyone. Are there no words at all in >this interface? Only then would I get really worried about using an >actual word. Then why use graphical icons at all? (This is one thing that I dislike about graphically iconic word processors... when I'm typing, I like to see what I'm typing... not a bunch fo pictures.) Whats interesting about Iconic Standards is that they make little sense to anyone else. I've seen a "Standard Icon Set" developed in Germany that made almost no sense to me. Yet at the same time I was presented with information that said that the original recognition tests of the icons proved that most people (in Germany) could identify them. How many people would understand the Trashcan icon if they have never seen "Sesamee Street"?... {: -- UID = 5553, CCID = F8PG, ID = 6 I am just a number prisoner@rpi.edu "refs unpersons" prisoner@acm.rpi.edu --- 1984 prisoner@rpitsmts.bitnet
john@thelonius.mitre.org (John D. Burger) (06/22/91)
hammy@ctt.bellcore.com writes:
Well, if I had to come up with such an icon, it would be a box ...
Also, of course, what I have just described could represent "gift",
"package", or any number of other "things".
Unfortunately, all of them physical in nature.
Actually, I would expect that if you examined your application
somewhat more carefully, you would realize that there are
constraints imposed on the nature of "thing" by the application - I
very much doubt that you really have a completely unconstrained
choice here. If you do, then maybe, as someone else suggested, the
word "thing" would be better.
A system that I work on uses a KL-ONE-style knowledge representation.
At the top of the hierarchy is the node ROOT, which is meant to
subsume everything, and I mean everything, in the universe of
discourse. ROOT directly subsumes the following nodes:
SITUATION, e.g. states and events
PROPERTY, e.g. the color or size of something
ENTITY, e.g. people, information, and sets of things
Thus, ROOT really does represent a completely unconstrained thing,
even including very abstract things. When we eventually build a
graphical editor for the hierarchy, I suspect we'll just use text for
the nodes, because I don't think it's possible to come up with icons
for PROPERTY or SITUATION, let alone ROOT.
--
John Burger john@mitre.org
"You ever think about .signature files? I mean, do we really need them?"
- alt.andy.rooneyted@aps1.spa.umn.edu (Ted Stockwell) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun21.192046.13627@linus.mitre.org> john@thelonius.mitre.org (John D. Burger) writes: > hammy@ctt.bellcore.com writes: > Well, if I had to come up with such an icon, it would be a box ... > Also, of course, what I have just described could represent "gift", > "package", or any number of other "things". > Unfortunately, all of them physical in nature. > Actually, I would expect that if you examined your application > somewhat more carefully, you would realize that there are > constraints imposed on the nature of "thing" by the application - I > very much doubt that you really have a completely unconstrained > choice here. If you do, then maybe, as someone else suggested, the > word "thing" would be better. But, if your application really is completely unconstrained, how about a kitchen sink? Should be obvious to everyone who has heard the cliche. -- Ted Stockwell U of MN, Dept. of Astronomy ted@aps1.spa.umn.edu Automated Plate Scanner Project
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun18.181536.14156@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) writes: > Has it occured to you to try using the word ``thing''? That only > makes sense if you speak English, but icons have a way of being > equally incomprehensible to everyone. Are there no words at all in > this interface? Only then would I get really worried about using an > actual word. It's true that many icons can become confusing, and I've considered using the textual description of the item inside an icon. For THING this may be the best approach, however there's no way I'll fit ASSERTION or GLOSSARY in such a small space (typically 1.75 cm in the smallest representation). George Bray > Michael Pereckas George Bray CSIRO Division of Information Technology > Phone: +61 2 887 9307 PO Box 1599 North Ryde 2113 AUSTRALIA > Fax: +61 2 888 7787 Internet: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU > CompuServe: 72711,253
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun19.162618.0807@MEMPHIS.wif.ctt.bellcore.com>, hammy@ctt.bellcore.com writes: > Also, of course, what I have just described could represent "gift", > "package", or any number of other "things". I like the idea of a present. It conveys that the type of the object is unknown. The application is an electronic book, where the reader can identify portions of text and "define" them to be used later in modelling exercises. I would like to use the THING to mean <any other knowledge or object type as yet undefined>. It not really important what it is, just that it is there. George Bray CSIRO Division of Information Technology AppleLink: AUSTRD3 CompuServe: 72711,253 > Phone: +61 2 887 9307 Internet: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU > Fax: +61 2 888 7787
dave@msb.com (Dave Lockwood) (06/23/91)
Sometimes an icon, like a word, can gain meaning from context. If, for example, you had icons for "person" and "place" next to it, the "thing" icon could be just about any_thing_ and be understandable, provided the other icons were easily comprehensible for their role in the application. Perhaps if we knew more about the application, we could find a more appropriate icon. Otherwise, the original suggestion of a hand coming out of an open box is just as good as any other. -- "Looking into the cakes is like looking | dave@msb.com (Dave Lockwood) into the future. Until you've tasted | UUCP: ...!uupsi!mpoint!dave it, what do you really know?...And by | Sysop of Meetpoint Station BBS then, it's too late." - Merlin | cat flames | mail santa@north.pole
lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) (06/24/91)
burns@endor.uucp (John Burns) writes: >Along the lines of the teapot someone suggested, how about an anvil, or >some similar picture of a heavy object with no moving parts? I'm not quite >sure if you want to convey the idea of (a) mystery object Is anyone else reminded of the Monolith in 2001? In this case, the original form of the Monolith would be more appropriate than the one that made it on screen. Originally the 2001 Monolith was clear, not black. They cast the largest piece of Lucite ever made (at least in 1968) and discovered that they absolutely could not film it. So they made a black one instead. [1] In this case, a clear rectangular prism, seen in a perspective view, with diagonal lines across the sides to indicate clear planes [2] would be an excellent "generic thang" icon. Lance Norskog 1 - Arthur C. Clarke. 2 - What do cartoonists call that?
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (06/24/91)
>>Why not a totally blank icon? >What do you mean? How would you see it if it is invisible? And how would you >distinguish it from a blank icon? Sorry. A blank 2D box. -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
jtthorp@hubcap.clemson.edu (Wile E. Coyote) (06/24/91)
In article <4325@motcsd.csd.mot.com> lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) writes: >burns@endor.uucp (John Burns) writes: > [Monolith deleted] >In this case, a clear rectangular prism, seen in a perspective view, with >diagonal lines across the sides to indicate clear planes [2] >would be an excellent "generic thang" icon. > >Lance Norskog > >2 - What do cartoonists call that? Window streaks....There is no `technical' cartoonists' word for them, but that's what they represent. Wile E. Coyote -- /| |\ Wile E. Coyote, Dean of the School of Hard Knocks /| |\ Acme Looniversity ,__OO|L_ O____~__} *** How `bout we end this cartoon before I hit? ***
hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) (06/25/91)
john@thelonius.mitre.org (John D. Burger) writes: >graphical editor for the hierarchy, I suspect we'll just use text for >the nodes, because I don't think it's possible to come up with icons >for PROPERTY or SITUATION, let alone ROOT. I agree for PROPERTY or SITUATION, but ROOT is easy. Just take the roots of a tree (Of course that doesn't have anything to do with the meaning of the root node, but everyone who sees the root-icon knows immediately that it represents the root-node). Take a look at the xfaces icons for nice ideas to represent accounts on a unix-system. -- | _ | Peter J. Holzer | Think of it | | |_|_) | Technical University Vienna | as evolution | | | | | Dept. for Real-Time Systems | in action! | | __/ | hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at | Tony Rand |
hammy@ctt.bellcore.com (06/25/91)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Someone (I forget who) suggested a kitchen sink icon as a solution to the
THING problem. I disagree on three counts. Firstly, only native english speakers
are likely to be familiar with the cliche. Secondly, although context does count
for something, there may be other interpretations of the sink icon ("washing one's
hands [of]", "sink deeper into something", heat sink in certain applications, etc.).
Finally, my memory of the cliche in question is "everything but the kitchen sink".
Now given that text, what does the kitchen sink icon mean? It would appear to me
to represent any object that is the most unlikely object under the circumstances -
the idea being that every other object (*but* - ie except - this one) has been
included.
The point is that using an icon as a metaphor, rather than as a direct representation,
is not necessarily a good idea since by its very nature, a metaphor relies on
context.
The same applies to using a pictorial representation of the roots of a plant to mean
"ROOT". An icon representing a homonym of the desired term can require sophistication
in the presentation language, in addition to context, to understand.
John.
_____
John G. Smith email : hammy@ctt.bellcore.com
RRC 1H-213 phone : (201) 699-4530thomas@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Tim Thomas) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun20.214406.13733@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> mig@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes: >In article <2040@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: >>>One of the representations I need is for a THING, a generic object. At best, >>>all I can think of is a hand coming out of a small wooden box, from the >>>Addams Family TV series. This is hardly intuitive! >> >>Why not a totally blank icon? > >What do you mean? How would you see it if it is invisible? And how would you >distinguish it from a blank icon? Hmmmm. You're right. The icon should be: +-------------+ |This Icon | |Intentionally| |Left Blank | +-------------+ :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
richards@eng.auburn.edu (Eric J. Richards) (06/25/91)
A thing icon... something you're not sure what it is. How about using an object that is an optical illusion (like that three-peg thing you see). It can't exist, and you don't know what it is. Augmented with a question mark, it definitely can make you ask "What is this thing?" _________________________________________________________________ \ Eric Richards, Auburn University "Money can't buy happiness. \ \ InterNet: Then again, happiness can't \ \\\ richards@eng.auburn.edu buy government insured CD's."\ \\\ -- David Addison \ \\\________________________________________________________________\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
smt@ (Stephen Taylor) (06/26/91)
WHY I DONT TRUST ICONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My first encounter with an Atari ST confused me completely - I put the
disk in, and saw the pointer turn into some kind of insect. I assumed we had
a disk error and this was a"bug" icon. So did the guy I was doing this with -
another professional programmer. On reading the manual (always the last
resort :) ) we found that this was the "busy bee" icon, and that we should just
wait. I've always felt that with the exception of the different drawing tools
in drawing programs, most icons could profitably be replaced by words. Less
cuteness, more comprehensibility.
Steve Taylor
smt@godzilla.cgl.rmit.oz.aumathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/26/91)
smt@ (Stephen "Completely Broken Return Address" Taylor) writes: > My first encounter with an Atari ST confused me completely - I put the > disk in, and saw the pointer turn into some kind of insect. I assumed we had > a disk error and this was a"bug" icon. Eh? You assumed that the machine wasn't going to give you any error message, it was just going to turn the mouse pointer a different shape? Isn't that rather a peculiar assumption? And couldn't you see the disk light still working? Anyway, it's all a bit academic; Digital Research later changed the "busy" mouse pointer to an hourglass. And besides, what does this have to do with icons? mathew
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/26/91)
In article <7053@husc6.harvard.edu>, burns@endor.uucp (John Burns) writes: > Along the lines of the teapot someone suggested, how about an anvil, or > some similar picture of a heavy object with no moving parts? I'm not quite > sure if you want to convey the idea of (a) mystery object, for which the > box with question mark might be best, (b) non-descript object, for which my > idea is designed (or possibly just the blank box, as someone else > mentioned), or (c) non-descript program, for which the hand-in-box might be > best as it is a more active symbol. The teapot idea was presented in reference to book, which I never read. It's not "nothing" enough. It means "pour some boing water on those dried leaves". The anvil or anchor is a great representation of an immovable object. The box is good for conveying mystery. The judges are still out on the see-thru ICON :-D George Bray
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/26/91)
> From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) > Microsoft Windows icon: OOps! But I'm just a Mac user! Is there any way to covert to binhex? Itching to see it! George Bray
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/26/91)
john@thelonius.mitre.org (John D. Burger) writes: > > A system that I work on uses a KL-ONE-style knowledge representation. > At the top of the hierarchy is the node ROOT, which is meant to > subsume everything, and I mean everything, in the universe of > discourse. ROOT directly subsumes the following nodes: > > SITUATION, e.g. states and events To represent states I would use other widgets like, on/off buttons and panel lights. Animated icons for events? This doesn't sound applicable to what I'm imagining is a network/heirarchy modelling tool (?) The others are difficult! George Bray
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) (06/26/91)
Ted Stockwell writes about the Kitchen Sink:
> Should be obvious to everyone who has heard the cliche.
No! I don't want the understanding of a key interface concept to
be limited to the number of people who know a cliche.
A sink is not abstract enough. It means "sink", not anything.
Thanks for your thoughts though! It's fascinating to see the
thoughts on the abstractly, amorphous, generic, artifact in all of us.
George Braymathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/27/91)
George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray) writes: > > From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) > > Microsoft Windows icon: > > OOps! But I'm just a Mac user! Is there any way to covert to binhex? As to encoding, you'll have to get a copy of uudecode. They do exist for the Mac. And if you get a GIF viewer, you can read the GIF file I posted. mathew
smt@ (Stephen Taylor) (06/28/91)
In comp.human-factors you write: >Eh? You assumed that the machine wasn't going to give you any error message, >it was just going to turn the mouse pointer a different shape? >Isn't that rather a peculiar assumption? And couldn't you see the disk light >still working? Give me a break - this was my first reaction, the instant I saw something happen. There's always time for rational thought later. >Anyway, it's all a bit academic; Digital Research later changed the "busy" >mouse pointer to an hourglass. Strangest "wait pointer" I ever heard of was a sitting Buddha. Maybe not the most intuitive though. >And besides, what does this have to do with icons? It's relevant, really. This whole thread has been about which icon most suits the fairly abstract concept of "generic object". I'm saying that there's too much reliance on pictures (doesn't matter whether it's an icon or a pointer) with the assumption that they're intrinsically more comprehensible than words. Whether you agree or not, I think it's squarely on the topic. >smt@ (Stephen "Completely Broken Return Address" Taylor) writes: I tried to email this first off, and it bounced. Damned if I know what's happening. >mathew Steve
rak@crosfield.co.uk (Richard Kirk) (06/28/91)
What an amazing spread of icons mean `thing' to different people! Would all
these people understand each others icons? perhaps we ought to have a
`guess the icon' competition once a week.
I keep trying to draw a `thing'. Each time it comes out looking like a
King Edward potato. Or maybe a satellite picture of Phobos. Would a
potato-ish thing do?
--
Richard Kirk Image Processing Dept Crosfield Electronics Ltd. U.K.
0442-230000 x3361/3591 Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 7RH