Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols

From: Stephan Stiller <>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:32:58 -0700

> The Noun Project seem determined to create a pictogram for every noun,
> and many short phrases:
> See


What are the constraints on the symbols; eg: what resolution can the
symbols be (so that we don't simply use detailed high-res pictures)? Are
there any organizing principles, or is it meant to be just a huge bag of
symbols? What convinces the project organizers that the result is
learnable? There ought to be /some/ theory behind.

And what is the intended scope? I already see symbols for concepts that
seem like a waste of the notional space ("Vulcan", and under the
category "faces of evil"?!) for a set meant to be universal in some sense.

And the symbols that humans created (according to their video) "stood
the test of time" – really? (What percentage?)

According to the video, "symbols have shared culture". Really? The
expression "pork[-]barrel spending" and the associated symbol (from
their blog) isn't exactly shared between dialects/languages and
cultures, is it.

And really a minor point, but the video uses clichés (football mentioned
in conjunction with Brazil) to illustrate the culture-independence of
symbols and that they're understood everywhere.

And "encyclopedia-worthy" (from their blog) isn't exactly a noun. What
is the intended scope of the project, and has anybody done a calculation
to aid an assessment of whether it is realistic?

> I don't have any statistics about how far they've got to date
Yes, where are their statistics?


Received on Tue May 28 2013 - 14:39:11 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 28 2013 - 14:39:13 CDT