Excellent question and points from Albrecht Dreiheller.
[AD:]
So the _receptive vocabulary_ might be pretty big for many people.
[...]
So the _productive vocabulary_ of symbols will always be very, very small.
I was thinking a similar thing, and I'm inclined to agree.
But I know of
On 31/05/13 01:13, Dreiheller, Albrecht wrote:
Watching the discussion on symbols, icons, signs, emoticons of the last days,
I'm thinking a little bit philosophically about the question:
Where will we end up?
Is communicating with symbols like a new easy-to-learn universal language?
Is this our
The ECOMO of symbols set is particularly interesting, as it seems to be a compendium of not just
the ISO 7001 symbols, but also the DOT and AIGA symbols, and almost all the other symbols I could
think of as meeting my earlier criteria, such as the ubiquitous running man emergency
exit symbol.
The Noun Project organizes Iconathons http://thenounproject.com/iconathon/ and
a collection: http://thenounproject.com/collections/iconathon/ . Cultural
Heritage Iconathon NY:
http://metro.org/articles/cultural-heritage-iconathon/
Bev
unicode@unicode.org
Cc: Dreiheller, Albrecht albrecht.dreihel...@siemens.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
The ECOMO of symbols set is particularly interesting, as it seems to be a
compendium of not just the ISO 7001 symbols, but also the DOT and AIGA
symbols, and almost all
On 31/05/13 20:37, Asmus Freytag (w) wrote:
I think that research that does precisely this kind of task of correlating
symbol repertoires against each other is extremely valuable in its own right.
Additional research that documents the usage of these symbols -- in computing
environments --
luck.
A./
-Original Message-
From: Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk
Sent: May 31, 2013 1:23 PM
To: Asmus Freytag (w) asm...@ix.netcom.com
Cc: “unicode“ Discussion unicode@unicode.org, Dreiheller,Albrecht
albrecht.dreihel...@siemens.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
-
From: Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk
Sent: May 31, 2013 1:23 PM
To: Asmus Freytag (w) asm...@ix.netcom.com
Cc: “unicode“ Discussion unicode@unicode.org, Dreiheller,Albrecht
albrecht.dreihel...@siemens.com
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
On 31/05/13 20:37, Asmus Freytag
Watching the discussion on symbols, icons, signs, emoticons of the last days,
I'm thinking a little bit philosophically about the question:
Where will we end up?
Is communicating with symbols like a new easy-to-learn universal language?
Is this our new Lingua Franca?
Even if there will be more
How to write a mail like this:
When you arrive at Madrid airport, follow the sign that looks like this: [?]
Even if the font library supports all needed symbols, it will be easier to
send a photo than to choose the sign from a huge Unicode symbols list.
Yep.
This discussion about signs is
Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
And what you'll run into is the fact that people don't agree that that
belongs in Unicode.
What those people would be running into is the fact that I would present
sufficient plain text usage of such signs, other than those who forwarded
“Emoji“
On 5/29/2013 1:39 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
And what you'll run into is the fact that people don't agree that that
belongs in Unicode.
What Andreas was suggesting is rigorous study. I think that is a
commendable suggestion.
The more
Am 29.05.2013 um 16:56 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
what aspects should such a study encompass, what are to be its starting points
Just a few thoughts and suggestions, as a possible starting point.
¶1
A certain difficulty lies in the fact that the definition of the subject of
study is not
On 29/05/13 15:56, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 5/29/2013 1:39 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
And what you'll run into is the fact that people don't agree that that
belongs in Unicode.
What Andreas was suggesting is rigorous study. I think that is a
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote:
Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
A lot of that is not exactly plain text. …
Many are and that is easily to testify.
Airport signs are not plain text, by any definition.
Come on, don’t be more
A quick look at
http://signcollection.com/media/wysiwyg/DOT_ISO_7001_Pictograms.jpg
http://defound.com/2011/10/the-helvetica-of-pictograms/
and
http://www.aiga.org/symbol-signs/
and making up names for the DOT/ISO 7001 symbols, gives the following
set of equivalences, suggesting a high
On 26/05/13 23:37, Michael Everson wrote:
On 26 May 2013, at 23:15, David Starner prosfil...@gmail.com wrote:
Problems from Unicode generally come from of two places; compatibility with
non-Unicode data sets, and people with different goals working on it. For
pictographs, when Google comes
The Noun Project seem determined to create a pictogram for every noun,
and many short phrases:
See http://blog.thenounproject.com/
Huh.
What are the constraints on the symbols; eg: what resolution can the
symbols be (so that we don't simply use detailed high-res pictures)? Are
there any
On 5/26/2013 3:15 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote:
One of the bodies in the world still ignorant of this fact to the very day
is Unicode. Which I feel is a mess.
Problems from Unicode generally come from of two places;
Am 28.05.2013 um 22:25 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
Solid scholarly study of the use of signs, symbols and pictographs might help
- except that there seem to be no scholars that tackle these from
an angle that would ultimately be useful for encoding. I don't believe that
is merely a funding
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote:
One *can* review e.g. the signage repertoire of, lat’s say, ten or 15 major
airports. Or of a dozen of major touristic guides. Or the sports pictograms
of the Olympics of the last 50 years. – Survey. And one *can*
From: David Starner prosfil...@gmail.com
To: Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de
Cc: “unicode“ Discussion unicode@unicode.org
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de
wrote
Am 24.05.2013 um 20:40 schrieb Michel Suignard:
Encoding pictographic symbols into Unicode is not an exact science.
I’m a researcher on matters like this for many years. I need to reply to that.
“Encoding alphabets to Unicode is not an exact science” – what does it tell?
The sentence is
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Stötzner a...@signographie.de wrote:
Everything can be dealt with in a serious scientific way (“exact” is not the
point here).
Which branch of music is the serious scientific one?
For a technical counterexample, Itanium was the right, scientific way
to
On 26 May 2013, at 23:15, David Starner prosfil...@gmail.com wrote:
Problems from Unicode generally come from of two places; compatibility with
non-Unicode data sets, and people with different goals working on it. For
pictographs, when Google comes forth saying this is the set we need
The US National Park Service pictograph set might be a good candidate
set as these are widely used on maps and in the text of guidebooks,
etc. - as well as in GIS applications.
http://www.nps.gov/hfc/carto/map-symbols.cfm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MapSymbols_other_US_NPS.svg
Hello Giorgio,
Nowadays, in computing, especially on the internet, icons-only fonts are
really popular.
Icon fonts solve a problem on the web, namely to provide scalable icons
that look great on multiple different devices and sizes with a little
less overhead than SVG images or other
Giorgio
You could do us a great favor by looking at what is already in the pipeline for
Unicode 7.0 and is part of amendment 1 and 2 to 10646 documented as such in the
2012 UTC registry (373 and 374). Those includes many new symbols, including
most of what you are looking for. Amendment 1 is
Hi Michel,
I found many icons I was looking for, yes... but the shopping cart one
is missing... the closest one is U+1F6CD (SHOPPING BAGS) which is close
enough for representing a shopping cart.
Giorgio
Il 24/05/2013 18:57, Michel Suignard ha scritto:
Giorgio
You could do us a great favor
Il 24/05/2013 18:41, Johannes Rössel ha scritto:
Sadly, people use to assign these icons/glyphs in the private use area,
because they think unicode is not good enough to map all of their icons.
No, they're doing the right thing, because if you use glyphs that
don't correspond to a code
I found many icons I was looking for, yes... but the shopping cart one is
missing... the closest one is U+1F6CD (SHOPPING BAGS) which is close enough
for representing a shopping cart.
Giorgio
Encoding pictographic symbols into Unicode is not an exact science. Typically
they get added
31 matches
Mail list logo
