On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Kevin Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:45, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I'd strongly recommend against eliminating the XO as the core element > >>> of the UI. It was chosen specifically to represent children, and to > >>> maintain the human/body metaphors where appropriate. Substituting it > >>> with anything other than a human likeness would be counterproductive, > >>> I fear. > >> > >> Is it possible to "split the difference"? It seems to me that by > >> adding "wings" of a sort to the XO figure, you'd be able to > >> approximate something that still looks human, yet also looks like a > >> sugar glider -- or a kid with a hang glider. Clearly related to the > >> original, but like the Red Bull commercials say "Sugar gives you > >> wings!" ;-) > > > > I don't think so. That misses the point, which is that the children > > themselves—not flying squirrels, however cute ;) —are represented as a > > My apologies extend to the marsupials, should I have offended them > with my ignorance. =) > Then again... http://www.wearyourbeer.com/images/Mario_Tanooki_Brown_Shirt.jpg http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/wherethewildthingsare.jpg
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
