Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!godzilla!smt From: smt@ (Stephen Taylor) Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Re: Thing ICON Keywords: wanted - graphical representation for generic objects Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 91 02:39:00 GMT References: <57i6425w164w@mantis.co.uk> Sender: usenet@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Njuiz noveles nova newes) Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia. Lines: 30 In comp.human-factors you write: >Eh? You assumed that the machine wasn't going to give you any error message, >it was just going to turn the mouse pointer a different shape? >Isn't that rather a peculiar assumption? And couldn't you see the disk light >still working? Give me a break - this was my first reaction, the instant I saw something happen. There's always time for rational thought later. >Anyway, it's all a bit academic; Digital Research later changed the "busy" >mouse pointer to an hourglass. Strangest "wait pointer" I ever heard of was a sitting Buddha. Maybe not the most intuitive though. >And besides, what does this have to do with icons? It's relevant, really. This whole thread has been about which icon most suits the fairly abstract concept of "generic object". I'm saying that there's too much reliance on pictures (doesn't matter whether it's an icon or a pointer) with the assumption that they're intrinsically more comprehensible than words. Whether you agree or not, I think it's squarely on the topic. >smt@ (Stephen "Completely Broken Return Address" Taylor) writes: I tried to email this first off, and it bounced. Damned if I know what's happening. >mathew Steve