[LINK] Are GUI design standards no longer relevant?

Philip Argy pargy at argystar.com
Tue Jan 19 00:58:10 AEDT 2010

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blissymbol


-----Original Message-----
From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
[mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ivan Trundle
Sent: Monday, 18 January 2010 22:18
To: dlochrin at d2.net.au
Cc: Link
Subject: Re: [LINK] Are GUI design standards no longer relevanr?

On 18/01/2010, at 9:22 PM, David Lochrin wrote:

> Words are best.  This is why civilisation evolved written language from

Words are best? I love such generalisations, especially since I've spent
most of my working life as an editor...

Why is the 'play' button on virtually every recordable device shown as an
enclosed forward arrow? And why does the car headlight switch show an
ellipsoidal image with straight lines emanating from it? I can think of a
hundred more examples, but the point I am trying to make is that the
standard 26 characters of the English alphabet are a poor form of
standardised communication, no matter what combinations are put together.
Iconography is just as useful, and often transcends a given language.

Written language is merely another form of iconography.

(I think that the starting point of this thread revolved around Google's
choice of iconography over mere letters. If it were that bad, Chrome would
die an instant death. Same with the iPhone, which uses a multitude of icons
(and the 'spanner' icon - or 'wrench' for you Americans - has fallen out of
favour, replaced with a gear icon - equally obtuse, but becoming a standard

Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au

More information about the Link mailing list