Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!msi.umn.edu!aps1.spa.umn.edu!ted From: ted@aps1.spa.umn.edu (Ted Stockwell) Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Re: Thing Icon Message-ID: Date: 22 Jun 91 00:12:24 GMT References: <1991Jun21.192046.13627@linus.mitre.org> Sender: news@s1.msi.umn.edu Organization: Univ. of Minnesota Astronomy Dept., APS Lab Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: john@thelonius.mitre.org's message of 21 Jun 91 19: 20:46 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: aps1.spa.umn.edu 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