On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Art Tevs <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I think in this case, as Roland has already stated out in the thread, > user posted this emoticon [Shocked] (here link to the picture > http://forum.openscenegraph.org/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif) has misunderstood > the meening of this icon. Hmm, I am wonder how to solve that issue, that > nobody misunderstand anybody. Even me, if I read the post by looking on the > pictures, can not understand what really this emoticon is good in this > context for. I think, I could correct it to use the :-) symbols instead of > bbcode, i.e. shocked will then be :O instead of [Shocked] . > Ok, I'll take a look into it.
:O would much more appropriate than the written [Shocked], as it's meaning is far less unambiguous than the actual text. Ooch too many double negatives... What I'm trying to say is the graphical and :O representations are a bit ambiguous so people won't read too much in to it as it could be read in several different ways so human nature would typically to give author the benefit of doubt. Whereas text [Shocked] is very specific in what it means, there really isn't any doubt about what it means. Given the selection of emoticon is done graphically where the actual text meaning is not conveyed one can easily select an emiticon that might be wholly appropriate or with the intended meaning, we'd want to maintain that level of ambiguity into the final form in an email or forum post. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
