Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:58:58 -0600 From: Sean Kelly <kelly@fsl.noaa.gov> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: jfieber@indiana.edu, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD keyboard Message-ID: <199607141558.PAA17189@gatekeeper.fsl.noaa.gov> In-Reply-To: <199607140713.JAA15291@uriah.heep.sax.de> (message from J Wunsch on Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:13:34 %2B0200 (MET DST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "J"org" == J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> writes:
J"org> When looking at the icon and toolbar etc. forest of the
J"org> typical application of these days, i still believe it's
J"org> rather done for optics than to improve recognition.
For optics? You mean sex appeal, right?
Icons are a waste of screen space. The argument that ``a picture
worth is worth a thousand words'' doesn't hold any water when most
icons actually represent just one or two words. The argument that
they encourage internationalization is bogus because cultural
reference bases enforce different meanings on different symbols.
Even within a culture, meanings are ambiguous: does the magnifying
glass mean zoom-in or search? If it means search, then what are
bionoculars for? And there are just some meanings for which there are
no good icons. My favorite examples that demonstrate this fact are my
icons for `load' and `save.' I'll spare you the ASCII art, but
consider a pile of dark dog sh*t, with fumes rising and even a fly or
two circling. That's load, obviously. For save, just use a
Christian-styled cross. Don't forget the federally-required 3-D
borders. :-)
The sad thing is, after wasting 4096 pixels for a 64x64 icon, most
applications still put one or two words underneath to remind you what
the fool thing is supposed to mean!
Yow! Does sex ever sell.
--
Sean Kelly
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory kelly@fsl.noaa.gov
Boulder Colorado USA http://www-sdd.fsl.noaa.gov/~kelly/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607141558.PAA17189>