I think that research that does precisely this kind of task of correlating symbol repertoires against each other is extremely valuable in its own right.
Additional research that documents the usage of these symbols -- in computing environments -- would also be useful.
Reliable facts on users and the tasks in which they use particular symbols (represented in filed and data) would be a better basis to argue about possible encodings than just the existence of symbols or whether they are highly recognizable when seen on signage.
Having said that, documenting the details of ongoing efforts at understanding symbols by posting each small finding on this list is probably inappropriate. That kind of effort belongs in a research project aimed at symbols.
A./
-----Original Message-----
>From: Neil Harris <neil_at_tonal.clara.co.uk>
>Sent: May 31, 2013 11:09 AM
>To: “unicode“ Discussion <unicode_at_unicode.org>
>Cc: "Dreiheller, Albrecht" <albrecht.dreiheller_at_siemens.com>
>Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
>
>>
>> The ECOMO of symbols set is particularly interesting, as it seems to be a compendium of not just the ISO 7001 symbols, but also the DOT and AIGA symbols, and almost all the other symbols I could think of as meeting my earlier criteria, such as the ubiquitous "running man" emergency exit symbol. the stylized "i" information symbol, and the symbols for sports activities.
>>
>> There is a list of all 125 of them here:
>>
>> http://www.ecomo.or.jp/barrierfree/pictogram/picto_top.html
>
>
>After a bit more research, I found this blog post:
>
>http://tavmjong.free.fr/blog/?p=700
>
>which suggests that the AIGA set and the Department of Transportation
>set are one and the same, and that the ECOMO and ISO 7001 pictograph
>sets were derived from this starting set of pictograms.
>
>I've had a quick go at unifying the ECOMO and AGIA sets with one another
>and symbols already encoded in Unicode, which suggests that around 126
>new characters might need to be encoded to complete both the ECOMO/AGIA
>sets.
>
>Details below the fold: I've tried to keep the various names I've used
>close to the names in the actual standards themselves. I'm sure there
>are errors in this, as well as missed opportunities for unification, but
>it's a start on estimating the scope of the task of completing the set
>of commonly used public information symbols.
>
>-- Neil
>
Received on Fri May 31 2013 - 14:40:29 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri May 31 2013 - 14:40:29 CDT