> A classic example of this problem occurred to me a few months ago when my
8 y/o
> son tried to set the clock on some electronic device and the icon looked
like
> an analog clock, sort of. It was a circle with dots around the border and
> a couple of lines. I immediately recognized it because I grew up with
analog
> clocks, but my son didn't make the connection until I explained it to him.
> When I explained it, he said, "That's stupid, clocks don't look like
that!"
> We speak the same language, live together, and the only difference is my
age and past
> experience yet he has to 'learn' a new symbol whereas I 'recognized' the
symbol.
Another example of obsolete paradigms: last week while installing software
for
my laptop I suddenly realized that the icons representing the new software
were
those of diskettes -- but I was of course using CD-ROMs as the installation
media.
Oh, how time flies.
--
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EXT [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 1:29 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [unicode] Re: (TC304.2313) AND/OR: antediluvian views
>
>
>
> Pictograms are problematic because they are often culturally
> based. Some
> pictograms we have learned, but the original idea behind the
> pictograms in
> automobiles, VCRs, etc. was that a manufacturer could save
> money by not
> labeling with a language but instead use a picture that is
> 'supposed' to
> have universal meaning across all locales. It doesn't work. You can
> usually figure out the meaning of some or even most of the
> symbols used,
> but not all. The easiest ones to figure out are the ones
> you've seen many
> times in previous similar situations. Meaning, you've learned a new
> 'alphabet'. The problem is that this alphabet has to keep
> growing to cover
> new functions in automobiles, electronics and appliances.
> It's beginning
> to sound like the CJK problem. Each time a new function is
> added, somebody
> has to come up with a new icon. A classic example of this
> problem occurred
> to me a few months ago when my 8 y/o son tried to set the
> clock on some
> electronic device and the icon looked like an analog clock,
> sort of. It
> was a circle with dots around the border and a couple of lines. I
> immediately recognized it because I grew up with analog
> clocks, but my son
> didn't make the connection until I explained it to him. When
> I explained
> it, he said, "That's stupid, clocks don't look like that!"
> We speak the
> same language, live together, and the only difference is my
> age and past
> experience yet he has to 'learn' a new symbol whereas I
> 'recognized' the
> symbol.
>
> The use of pictograms has their place, but it does require the user to
> learn a new set of symbols with which to represent ideas.
> Standardization
> of pictograms is important, but I'm not convinced that
> Unicode is the place
> for that standard.
>
> Wayne S.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Alain"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Unicode
> List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> .qc.ca> cc: Unicode List
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 06/13/2000 Subject: Re:
> [unicode] Re: (TC304.2313) AND/OR: antediluvian views
> 09:29 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> À 10:45 2000-06-12 -0500, David Starner a écrit:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 05:31:58AM -0800, Alain wrote:
> > Personally I am all in favour of pictograms everywhere, as far
> > as possible (it avoids many linguistic problems, in
> particular in
> > multilingual environments -- such as airports). It requires,
> unfortunately,
> > a lot of education, as most of them, beyond a certain number of
> elementary
> > ones, are not obvious nor intuitive at all. But it is worth the
> effort,
> > this kind of education.
>
> [David]
> Why? By that time you've started to make a language -
> one that can't
> be written in Braille, can't be easily displayed on
> those dot-matrix
> light signs, and can't be spoken ("Passports?", "Look
> out!"). The only
> advantage I can see is it being an easier sell than a
> real language.
>
> [Alain] It is much lighter than having to provide
> indications, say, in 12
> languages (most common example: toilets).
>
> On VCRs it seems a good prcatice (outside the USA, at least).
>
> In Canada, on keyboards, it avoids putting bilingual
> indications for
> functions, and to have to produce different versions showing
> English first
> then French, or French first, then English.
>
> With more than 2 languages, precedence becomes problematic. As an
> example of language precedence, an actual case: at the Toronto Airport
> Radisson Suite Hotels, my prefered hotel in Toronto (so far!
> but it could
> change...), they recently introduced a multilingual voice
> mail system. In
> Canada, French and English are the two official languages of
> the country
> (and most probably at this hotel the majority of the customers speak
> Englsih and French, with a high concentration of French speakers). In
> general in Canada you are presented with a choice of language
> where you
> indicate your option by pressing a specific key on the
> telephone keypad (1
> English 2 French -- or the reverse in Québec). At this hotel,
> French is the
> 5th choice. It is offensive, I can assure you (I would not have been
> offended in Taiwan, of course).
>
> Pictograms avoid such problems. I just gave an indication
> of where it
> can be very useful, and be a peace factor.
>
> Alain LaBonté
> Québec
>
>
>
