Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!gatech!emcard!stiatl!tom
From: tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Cross-linguistic issues in the design of Icons
Summary: Impossibility of "universal" icons
Keywords: interfaces, icons, cross-linguistic issues, Spanish
Message-ID: <6531@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 19 Aug 89 22:21:52 GMT
References: <9268@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <1985@softway.oz>
Reply-To: tom@stiatl.UUCP (Tom Wiencko)
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"
Lines: 51

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