There seem to be two things here: 1) When should we set/accept/challenge standards?
2) How much how people have to learn to interact with these abstract ideas that are so new in our evolution, and how much should be metaphor? Personally, I would want to go with the broken-circle-with-vertical-bar representation. It is a standard whose 'etymology' is based upon the engineering notation that have allowed these things to exist in the first place. It is becoming more and more widely used. It is visually distinct: OK, I can only speak for the roman alphabet and the symbolism that I have encountered over my lifetime, so there would be more investigation needed here. It is simple and elegant (a little subjective, but _I_ think it's elegant). Do we need to re-visit the symbol? The representation is consistent with the on/off 1/0 yes/no that is intrinsic to computers and is fairly unique to the man-made realm. You can't switch a goat off and on again. And what else could you use? What represents power or something functioning? Lightning? I would associate that with danger. The army? Inappropriate. An engine? Well, perhaps, but the association is a bit ropey. What does everyone think? Alex. ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
