Comment by aqsalose | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aqsalose | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Right, while hurtling down the freeway I can always dig the 500 page manual out and dig through it. Note that I can't use the index to find those icons, because icons have no alphabetic order. Like I said, going backwards 2000 years.

You can't also look at index to decipher what it means to see "red light bulb that is 'on' over two light bulbs that are 'off'" or "human figure walking over piano keyboard inside a white triangle which is inside a blue square" when you are driving, you are supposed to get familiar with those symbols before get in the car. Typical car has barely a dozen or two pictograms, and any car is a machine than can easily kill and maim. It would be advisable to look at the manual before one starts driving. Of course, it would advisable if those symbols were also standardized like traffic signs.

I actually agree with you about Unicode mission creep, but it is better not get overboard with pictograms that have nothing to with Unicode.

  > Of course, it would advisable if those symbols were
  > also standardized like traffic signs.

The warning lights and symbols necessary for operation of the vehicle are standardized. The only two icons that have different variants across vehicle manufacturers, that I am aware of, are the Parking Brake Engaged icon (which could have an exclamation point or a P) and the Airbag Disabled icon (which has varying levels of body thickness for the depicted human).

Traffic lights have many advantages over icons or text. They are far more reliable than electro-mechanical moving signs, can be seen at night, and can be seen at a much farther distance. The vertical configuration came about because of color blind people. I'm old enough to remember when they were horizontal.

Warning lights are used to draw attention.

It's not an argument for icons.

My old car has controls labeled "defrost", "heat", "cold". I never even had a manual for it.

US roads still have plenty of signs in English, like "Speed Limit", "Stop", "Yield", "Road Construction", "Detour", "No Turn On Red", etc. Nobody has any trouble understanding them.

> US roads still have plenty of signs in English, like "Speed Limit", "Stop", "Yield", "Road Construction", "Detour", "No Turn On Red", etc. Nobody has any trouble understanding them.

I strongly suspect that "Nobody has any trouble understanding them" is not true. While I agree with you that iconitis can go overboard, I think pretending that words are universally clearer—in the sense of every place, but also for everyone, not just you—is an exaggeration.

> I strongly suspect that "Nobody has any trouble understanding them" is not true.

This sort of comment is inevitable. I could say "everyone likes ice cream" and I'd get a comment saying they know someone who doesn't like ice cream. I could say "people have two legs" and there's be comment about someone who was born with one leg.

> This sort of comment is inevitable. I could say "everyone likes ice cream" and I'd get a comment saying they know someone who doesn't like ice cream. I could say "people have two legs" and there's be comment about someone who was born with one leg.

It seems to me that you prove a point against your own argument here. If you said "people have two legs" in an anatomy class, then that would be the wrong place to object. If you said "people have two legs" as an argument against installing wheelchair ramps, then I think that would be the right place to object that some people don't.

Given your other comments in this thread, your statement that "Nobody has any trouble understanding them" seemed to be a statement to be taken seriously if perhaps not completely literally, rather than being a casual statement of the type clearly to be understood as loaded down with qualifiers like "on average, in predominantly English-speaking in the US …". I took your argument to be against using icons, even in situations where they might allow non-English speakers equal access to crucial information, and it seems to me to be worth pointing out that universally quantified statements in that setting not only are not true in the most technical sense, but are even likely to be harmful if used to guide policy and decisions.

> Nobody has any trouble understanding them.

People who don’t speak English perhaps.

Traffic signs are something the Europeans did well and are just part of taking a driving license. Crossing a country border won’t mean you suddenly can’t read traffic signs.

Meanwhile in Thailand I find the occasional full-Thai sign I have no idea of what it means. Maybe it means turn left on red allowed, maybe the opposite. Good luck, everyone else.

> People who don’t speak English perhaps.

There's a huge difference between being competent in English and knowing a handful of English words. For example, if I travel in France and stay at a hotel with a french name, am I going to have to learn French to associate the name of the hotel with the hotel? Of course not.

> Maybe it means turn left

The thing is, if the Europeans had standardized on the word "STOP" for stop signs, people would have learned that just as easily as the icon for STOP. Oh wait, they did just that!

(I'm old enough to remember when the Germans used "HALT" signs.)

The USA should become a signatory to the Vienna convention on road signs and signals like its neighbour country. That way, people will have even less trouble. More people comprehend the common, global (pictographic) language than English.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com