Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU!news
From: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Thing ICON
Keywords: wanted - graphical representation for generic objects
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.152738.21575@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU>
Date: 26 Jun 91 15:27:38 GMT
References: <7053@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU
Reply-To: George.Bray@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (George Bray)
Organization: Sand Consulting, guest of CSIRO Information Technology, Australia.
Lines: 20

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