Re: Icons

Subject: Re: Icons
From: "Ridder, Fred" <F -dot- Ridder -at- DIALOGIC -dot- COM>
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 14:28:58 -0400

Using a skull-and-crossbones image as a "danger" icon is a bad idea,
IMO.
The conventional use of this symbol is to identify a poisonous material.
This
certainly connotes dangerous (potentially fatal danger, in fact), but it
is
much more specific than a generic danger.

BTW, symbols used in this way are more properly termed "glyphs" rather
than "icons".

Fred Ridder
f -dot- ridder -at- dialogic -dot- com
Senior Technical Writer
Dialogic Corporation

and to keep our marketing people happy:
Get the Dialogic Edge at http://www.dialogic.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Ion [SMTP:soundy -at- NEXTLEVEL -dot- COM]
>Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 7:14 AM
>Subject: Re: Icons
>
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 15:30:44 -0500, Rob Marriage wrote:
>
>>Also, I couldn't find a definition for "danger" in the context I'm using.
>>Does
>>that mean that "caution" covers "danger"?
>
>How about a skull-and-crossbones icon?
>
>
>

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html


Previous by Author: Re: Agencies/markup/etc.
Next by Author: Re: Variations on my Word problem.
Previous by Thread: Re: Icons
Next by Thread: Re: Icons


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads