Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Cross-linguistic issues in the design of Icons
Message-ID: <4876@eos.UUCP>
Date: 26 Aug 89 05:51:56 GMT
References: <9268@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <1985@softway.oz> <1989Aug20.005726.27233@utzoo.uucp> <30767@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <9446@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <6908@ulysses.UUCP>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 22

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.