<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_0815216</id>
	<title>For GUIs, Just the Right Degree of Realism</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264167360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mr crypto writes <i>"User interfaces make copious use of pictures and symbols, but <a href="http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2010/01/21/realism\_in\_ui\_design/">how abstract should images be</a>?  Lukas Mathis has an interesting blog entry on where to draw the line."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mr crypto writes " User interfaces make copious use of pictures and symbols , but how abstract should images be ?
Lukas Mathis has an interesting blog entry on where to draw the line .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mr crypto writes "User interfaces make copious use of pictures and symbols, but how abstract should images be?
Lukas Mathis has an interesting blog entry on where to draw the line.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863048</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1264152420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Puns don't belong as icons. For one, they fail i18n.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I forget what the application (or was it a game?) was... probably on the Amiga. The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.</p></div><p>I believe the peer-to-peer file sharing application BearShare also used a paw print for a "Pause" button.</p><p>I work on development of an application (I won't name) where there is a set of icons I long to replace which use a blue gear and a gray octagon with "1c" printed in it (where c is the cent sign), both outlined in black, to symbolize "<em>Change</em> Options". It's not even a copper penny to represent the <i>verb</i> change: it is a <em>steel</em> penny! And these symbols take up over 50\% of the icon's area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Puns do n't belong as icons .
For one , they fail i18n.I forget what the application ( or was it a game ?
) was... probably on the Amiga .
The 'pause ' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.I believe the peer-to-peer file sharing application BearShare also used a paw print for a " Pause " button.I work on development of an application ( I wo n't name ) where there is a set of icons I long to replace which use a blue gear and a gray octagon with " 1c " printed in it ( where c is the cent sign ) , both outlined in black , to symbolize " Change Options " .
It 's not even a copper penny to represent the verb change : it is a steel penny !
And these symbols take up over 50 \ % of the icon 's area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Puns don't belong as icons.
For one, they fail i18n.I forget what the application (or was it a game?
) was... probably on the Amiga.
The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.I believe the peer-to-peer file sharing application BearShare also used a paw print for a "Pause" button.I work on development of an application (I won't name) where there is a set of icons I long to replace which use a blue gear and a gray octagon with "1c" printed in it (where c is the cent sign), both outlined in black, to symbolize "Change Options".
It's not even a copper penny to represent the verb change: it is a steel penny!
And these symbols take up over 50\% of the icon's area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861578</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1264186440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ou can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive. I know the reply button starts a reply. The Cancel button cancels it. The option button lets me see various options.</p></div></blockquote><p>These kinds of unintuitive pyrotechnics are why I'm sticking with the 1.0 discussion system. In my day young man, we had two buttons--"Reply" and "Parent"; and we were happier for it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ou can give me flack for it , but I 'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive .
I know the reply button starts a reply .
The Cancel button cancels it .
The option button lets me see various options.These kinds of unintuitive pyrotechnics are why I 'm sticking with the 1.0 discussion system .
In my day young man , we had two buttons-- " Reply " and " Parent " ; and we were happier for it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ou can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive.
I know the reply button starts a reply.
The Cancel button cancels it.
The option button lets me see various options.These kinds of unintuitive pyrotechnics are why I'm sticking with the 1.0 discussion system.
In my day young man, we had two buttons--"Reply" and "Parent"; and we were happier for it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30865402</id>
	<title>Icons are also visual tags for faster orientation</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1264166040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I noticed that I take half a second to a second more to find the now iconless menus in Ubuntu 9.10. It looks like icons can become a visual markers to not actually look at them and decipher their meaning but just to memorize the general outlook of them, like when you read, you read the whole words, not just letter by letter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that I take half a second to a second more to find the now iconless menus in Ubuntu 9.10 .
It looks like icons can become a visual markers to not actually look at them and decipher their meaning but just to memorize the general outlook of them , like when you read , you read the whole words , not just letter by letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that I take half a second to a second more to find the now iconless menus in Ubuntu 9.10.
It looks like icons can become a visual markers to not actually look at them and decipher their meaning but just to memorize the general outlook of them, like when you read, you read the whole words, not just letter by letter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861776</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1264187880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I'm not completely certain, I get the feeling that the international community actually has quite a few commonly recognized symbols and our lack of exposure is what makes them difficult to interpret.  I'm seeing new icons where there used to be words, but I seem to see the same set of icons repeatedly.</p><p>I have a cup heater/cooler in the new car, and I can never remember if the wavy lines are a cool breeze or heat rising off the ground, and if the star-looking thing is a sun or a snowflake, but I think that's my lack of exposure and not really a fault of the icons.  (The colors--red and blue--really help though)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I 'm not completely certain , I get the feeling that the international community actually has quite a few commonly recognized symbols and our lack of exposure is what makes them difficult to interpret .
I 'm seeing new icons where there used to be words , but I seem to see the same set of icons repeatedly.I have a cup heater/cooler in the new car , and I can never remember if the wavy lines are a cool breeze or heat rising off the ground , and if the star-looking thing is a sun or a snowflake , but I think that 's my lack of exposure and not really a fault of the icons .
( The colors--red and blue--really help though )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I'm not completely certain, I get the feeling that the international community actually has quite a few commonly recognized symbols and our lack of exposure is what makes them difficult to interpret.
I'm seeing new icons where there used to be words, but I seem to see the same set of icons repeatedly.I have a cup heater/cooler in the new car, and I can never remember if the wavy lines are a cool breeze or heat rising off the ground, and if the star-looking thing is a sun or a snowflake, but I think that's my lack of exposure and not really a fault of the icons.
(The colors--red and blue--really help though)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30877438</id>
	<title>Re:We have a universal system of symbols.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264337820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When did a written language become universal?  Last time I checked we hadn't even managed to agree on a single common <i>script</i>, let alone a language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When did a written language become universal ?
Last time I checked we had n't even managed to agree on a single common script , let alone a language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did a written language become universal?
Last time I checked we hadn't even managed to agree on a single common script, let alone a language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1264175340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And at the end of it I still don't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count "just abstract enough" as an answer!</p><p>I was hoping for some insight and all I got was pretty pictures and hand-waving<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And at the end of it I still do n't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count " just abstract enough " as an answer ! I was hoping for some insight and all I got was pretty pictures and hand-waving : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at the end of it I still don't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count "just abstract enough" as an answer!I was hoping for some insight and all I got was pretty pictures and hand-waving :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861916</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264188900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> However, if I was from Japan, I wouldn't have any clue what any of these buttons mean.</p></div></blockquote><p>How so?</p><p>Did you mean that if you didn't understand English you wouldn't know what the buttons did?   That's a loose correlation at best, because 1) a fair few Japanese people are competent with English and 2) there are lots of people who aren't competent in English who come from other places.</p><p>Which brings me to the universal problem with buttons: label them with text, and only people who understand that language will know what they do.  Put [poorly designed] icons on, and nobody will.  At least it's fair!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if I was from Japan , I would n't have any clue what any of these buttons mean.How so ? Did you mean that if you did n't understand English you would n't know what the buttons did ?
That 's a loose correlation at best , because 1 ) a fair few Japanese people are competent with English and 2 ) there are lots of people who are n't competent in English who come from other places.Which brings me to the universal problem with buttons : label them with text , and only people who understand that language will know what they do .
Put [ poorly designed ] icons on , and nobody will .
At least it 's fair !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> However, if I was from Japan, I wouldn't have any clue what any of these buttons mean.How so?Did you mean that if you didn't understand English you wouldn't know what the buttons did?
That's a loose correlation at best, because 1) a fair few Japanese people are competent with English and 2) there are lots of people who aren't competent in English who come from other places.Which brings me to the universal problem with buttons: label them with text, and only people who understand that language will know what they do.
Put [poorly designed] icons on, and nobody will.
At least it's fair!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888768</id>
	<title>Re:The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always saw it as an "under construction" sign, signifying that VLC is a perpetual beta.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always saw it as an " under construction " sign , signifying that VLC is a perpetual beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always saw it as an "under construction" sign, signifying that VLC is a perpetual beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860294</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264180080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In far more interfaces than not (media players, custom app buttons, etc) I have to resort to hovering over a given control to wait for the tooltip and learn what it does.  The problem here is as we more into customized/unique-appearing apps, the learning we have done that says "this is what thing-X should look like" becomes less relevant.   And since no two applications are standardizing on the same interfaces, there's essentially a learning curve for each one whereas in the past learning the first would also help you learn the second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In far more interfaces than not ( media players , custom app buttons , etc ) I have to resort to hovering over a given control to wait for the tooltip and learn what it does .
The problem here is as we more into customized/unique-appearing apps , the learning we have done that says " this is what thing-X should look like " becomes less relevant .
And since no two applications are standardizing on the same interfaces , there 's essentially a learning curve for each one whereas in the past learning the first would also help you learn the second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In far more interfaces than not (media players, custom app buttons, etc) I have to resort to hovering over a given control to wait for the tooltip and learn what it does.
The problem here is as we more into customized/unique-appearing apps, the learning we have done that says "this is what thing-X should look like" becomes less relevant.
And since no two applications are standardizing on the same interfaces, there's essentially a learning curve for each one whereas in the past learning the first would also help you learn the second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859924</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1264178280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing they rotate the video 90 degrees in either direction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing they rotate the video 90 degrees in either direction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing they rotate the video 90 degrees in either direction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859566</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>P-Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1264176600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There isn't enough room on the screen for all the icons in a complex program to be written out in English.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't enough room on the screen for all the icons in a complex program to be written out in English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't enough room on the screen for all the icons in a complex program to be written out in English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</id>
	<title>Computer HUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always wanted to make a UI based around the actual physical layout of the computer itself.  For instance, say you are working on a Optiplex Dell of some sort, I would find it very useful to see a layout not unlike the physical damage indicators you see in Star Wars Podracers.  You want to access a file? Click on the hard drive, want to see CPU usage reports? Click on the CPU!  Not only would it be a cool UI but it would also be a useful educational tool.  </p><p>If this could be done it would be awesome.  The hardest part would be creating all of the different layouts for all of the differrent computer models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always wanted to make a UI based around the actual physical layout of the computer itself .
For instance , say you are working on a Optiplex Dell of some sort , I would find it very useful to see a layout not unlike the physical damage indicators you see in Star Wars Podracers .
You want to access a file ?
Click on the hard drive , want to see CPU usage reports ?
Click on the CPU !
Not only would it be a cool UI but it would also be a useful educational tool .
If this could be done it would be awesome .
The hardest part would be creating all of the different layouts for all of the differrent computer models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always wanted to make a UI based around the actual physical layout of the computer itself.
For instance, say you are working on a Optiplex Dell of some sort, I would find it very useful to see a layout not unlike the physical damage indicators you see in Star Wars Podracers.
You want to access a file?
Click on the hard drive, want to see CPU usage reports?
Click on the CPU!
Not only would it be a cool UI but it would also be a useful educational tool.
If this could be done it would be awesome.
The hardest part would be creating all of the different layouts for all of the differrent computer models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860500</id>
	<title>Abstract logos; internationalization</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264181040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser.</p></div><p>
Pepsi's icon is a blue and red circle with a curved white stripe through the middle. If you had never used Pepsi before you would have no clue that it was a cola.
</p><p>
The article states that application icons are the exception to the rule. Logos embody an application's identity, and abstract trademarks establish a stronger identity both under the law and to the public than descriptive ones.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.</p></div><p>
Would you rather have "f&#233;nysz&#243;r&#243;" or "Scheinwerfer" or "pr&#236;omh-sholas" than a stylized picture of a headlight?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 's icon is a lower case " e " on what appears to be paper ; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser .
Pepsi 's icon is a blue and red circle with a curved white stripe through the middle .
If you had never used Pepsi before you would have no clue that it was a cola .
The article states that application icons are the exception to the rule .
Logos embody an application 's identity , and abstract trademarks establish a stronger identity both under the law and to the public than descriptive ones .
In my car I 'd far rather have the word " headlights " than a stylized picture of a headlight .
Would you rather have " f   nysz   r   " or " Scheinwerfer " or " pr   omh-sholas " than a stylized picture of a headlight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser.
Pepsi's icon is a blue and red circle with a curved white stripe through the middle.
If you had never used Pepsi before you would have no clue that it was a cola.
The article states that application icons are the exception to the rule.
Logos embody an application's identity, and abstract trademarks establish a stronger identity both under the law and to the public than descriptive ones.
In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.
Would you rather have "fényszóró" or "Scheinwerfer" or "prìomh-sholas" than a stylized picture of a headlight?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859532</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1264176420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.</p></div><p>Actually, you don't have to be able to speak English. As long as you can read it you're fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may say , well , if you put all your commands in English , then only English speakers can use your app.Actually , you do n't have to be able to speak English .
As long as you can read it you 're fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.Actually, you don't have to be able to speak English.
As long as you can read it you're fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30868140</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>qubezz</author>
	<datestamp>1264242300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd better know that a road sign shaped like that pentagon (in the US) means <i>school</i>, unless you want a ticket!
Ignorance of the non-obvious is no defense!</p><p>There was an interesting 'Top Gear' episode two weeks ago that had an interview with one of the two designers of all British road signs - she was a graduate student at the time and worked with her professor, and their designs are now ubiquitous in the country. (Google 'school road sign' if you want to see how incorrigible the US' sign is.)</p><p>The British signs do have their failings though - the 'men working' sign has been compared to a man struggling with a parasol in the wind.... (http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/men\_at\_work\_sign2.gif)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd better know that a road sign shaped like that pentagon ( in the US ) means school , unless you want a ticket !
Ignorance of the non-obvious is no defense ! There was an interesting 'Top Gear ' episode two weeks ago that had an interview with one of the two designers of all British road signs - she was a graduate student at the time and worked with her professor , and their designs are now ubiquitous in the country .
( Google 'school road sign ' if you want to see how incorrigible the US ' sign is .
) The British signs do have their failings though - the 'men working ' sign has been compared to a man struggling with a parasol in the wind.... ( http : //rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/men \ _at \ _work \ _sign2.gif )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd better know that a road sign shaped like that pentagon (in the US) means school, unless you want a ticket!
Ignorance of the non-obvious is no defense!There was an interesting 'Top Gear' episode two weeks ago that had an interview with one of the two designers of all British road signs - she was a graduate student at the time and worked with her professor, and their designs are now ubiquitous in the country.
(Google 'school road sign' if you want to see how incorrigible the US' sign is.
)The British signs do have their failings though - the 'men working' sign has been compared to a man struggling with a parasol in the wind.... (http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/men\_at\_work\_sign2.gif)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30869054</id>
	<title>You mean Ideograms (not heiroglyphics)</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264255980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics</p></div><p>I think you mean ideograms---a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept (with the connotation that different concepts each has its own ideogram).</p><p>Some hieroglyphics are actually phonetic: Carl Sagan argues so in Cosmos (I don't recall the episode), based on (iirc) the Rosetta stone, and the occurrence of "Ptolmeus" and "Kleopatra": the first symbol of "Ptolmeus" matches the fifth from "Kleopatra", etc.</p><p>Some hieroglyphics are ideograms, though: the "ra" in Kleopatra is written with an ankh, the symbol for life and the life-giving sun god, Ra.</p><p>Sorry for being all pedantic about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I just think it's an interesting bit of knowledge and I wanted to share it with you all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphicsI think you mean ideograms---a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept ( with the connotation that different concepts each has its own ideogram ) .Some hieroglyphics are actually phonetic : Carl Sagan argues so in Cosmos ( I do n't recall the episode ) , based on ( iirc ) the Rosetta stone , and the occurrence of " Ptolmeus " and " Kleopatra " : the first symbol of " Ptolmeus " matches the fifth from " Kleopatra " , etc.Some hieroglyphics are ideograms , though : the " ra " in Kleopatra is written with an ankh , the symbol for life and the life-giving sun god , Ra.Sorry for being all pedantic about it : ) I just think it 's an interesting bit of knowledge and I wanted to share it with you all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphicsI think you mean ideograms---a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept (with the connotation that different concepts each has its own ideogram).Some hieroglyphics are actually phonetic: Carl Sagan argues so in Cosmos (I don't recall the episode), based on (iirc) the Rosetta stone, and the occurrence of "Ptolmeus" and "Kleopatra": the first symbol of "Ptolmeus" matches the fifth from "Kleopatra", etc.Some hieroglyphics are ideograms, though: the "ra" in Kleopatra is written with an ankh, the symbol for life and the life-giving sun god, Ra.Sorry for being all pedantic about it :)  I just think it's an interesting bit of knowledge and I wanted to share it with you all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861158</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264184220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes down to establishing a common vocabulary based on "what do I/you do with the thing that is pictured?"</p><p>A photo of house only means "go home" to the person who lives there.<br>A photo of a camera only means "take pictures" if you own that exact model of camera.</p><p>To everyone else, they're just random objects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes down to establishing a common vocabulary based on " what do I/you do with the thing that is pictured ?
" A photo of house only means " go home " to the person who lives there.A photo of a camera only means " take pictures " if you own that exact model of camera.To everyone else , they 're just random objects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes down to establishing a common vocabulary based on "what do I/you do with the thing that is pictured?
"A photo of house only means "go home" to the person who lives there.A photo of a camera only means "take pictures" if you own that exact model of camera.To everyone else, they're just random objects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862636</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264193040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.</p></div><p>Actually, you don't have to be able to speak English. As long as you can read it you're fine.</p></div><p>Actually, you don't have to be able to read English either. Because a lot of applications come in  English only, or, usually, as really bad localisations(*), a lot of kids that don't understand english at all learn that pressing buttons with certain scribbles result in certain actions. They may not even be able of reading their own native language</p><p>(*) Even if it is a text-only interface, iIt's not enough to translate the words and sentences to another language -- I hate GNU gettext with a passion for all the horrible "localisations" it has given us. Even when it is a language with many similarities to English, you have to translate the  interface as a whole to fit the language structure. You shouldn't write Ruby code as sentence by sentence translations of COBOL-68 code either, nor translate  books in English without restructuring the chapters, paragraphs and sentences to fit the target language. I think English is a very primitive and rather horrible language, but I rather use the native English version of an computer application, then the same application transmutilated into something pretending to be a language I actually like (of the twelve or so languages I understand reasonably well (all of them with Germanic and/or Latin roots, I really should broaden my language skills), I only loathe English and most dialects of spoken Danish (there exist some really cool pidgin English though, but I don't think they usually count as "real" English by native English speakers).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may say , well , if you put all your commands in English , then only English speakers can use your app.Actually , you do n't have to be able to speak English .
As long as you can read it you 're fine.Actually , you do n't have to be able to read English either .
Because a lot of applications come in English only , or , usually , as really bad localisations ( * ) , a lot of kids that do n't understand english at all learn that pressing buttons with certain scribbles result in certain actions .
They may not even be able of reading their own native language ( * ) Even if it is a text-only interface , iIt 's not enough to translate the words and sentences to another language -- I hate GNU gettext with a passion for all the horrible " localisations " it has given us .
Even when it is a language with many similarities to English , you have to translate the interface as a whole to fit the language structure .
You should n't write Ruby code as sentence by sentence translations of COBOL-68 code either , nor translate books in English without restructuring the chapters , paragraphs and sentences to fit the target language .
I think English is a very primitive and rather horrible language , but I rather use the native English version of an computer application , then the same application transmutilated into something pretending to be a language I actually like ( of the twelve or so languages I understand reasonably well ( all of them with Germanic and/or Latin roots , I really should broaden my language skills ) , I only loathe English and most dialects of spoken Danish ( there exist some really cool pidgin English though , but I do n't think they usually count as " real " English by native English speakers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.Actually, you don't have to be able to speak English.
As long as you can read it you're fine.Actually, you don't have to be able to read English either.
Because a lot of applications come in  English only, or, usually, as really bad localisations(*), a lot of kids that don't understand english at all learn that pressing buttons with certain scribbles result in certain actions.
They may not even be able of reading their own native language(*) Even if it is a text-only interface, iIt's not enough to translate the words and sentences to another language -- I hate GNU gettext with a passion for all the horrible "localisations" it has given us.
Even when it is a language with many similarities to English, you have to translate the  interface as a whole to fit the language structure.
You shouldn't write Ruby code as sentence by sentence translations of COBOL-68 code either, nor translate  books in English without restructuring the chapters, paragraphs and sentences to fit the target language.
I think English is a very primitive and rather horrible language, but I rather use the native English version of an computer application, then the same application transmutilated into something pretending to be a language I actually like (of the twelve or so languages I understand reasonably well (all of them with Germanic and/or Latin roots, I really should broaden my language skills), I only loathe English and most dialects of spoken Danish (there exist some really cool pidgin English though, but I don't think they usually count as "real" English by native English speakers).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862366</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264191480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a concept for explaining things called <i>examples</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a concept for explaining things called examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a concept for explaining things called examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864364</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>logixoul</author>
	<datestamp>1264158900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for, but the text makes the icon redundant.</p></div><p>OK, fifteen pages of complainers who have no idea about HCI now... let me give you a clue.<br> <br>

Icons are beneficial in all interfaces - menus, file managers, toolbars, you name it. They let you find what you're looking for faster. The human brain is optimized to recognize and analyze colors and shapes. When you're confronted with a menu of 10 programs, research shows you find yours more easily by looking for the circular blue-and-red icon than the words "Mozilla Firefox".<br> <br>

Factors in icon design include:<br>
- A clear shape. Firefox is a circle, VS is an infinity symbol, Notepad is a rectangular notebook, and Word is a W in a square.<br>
- Evocative colors. A red cross means delete, a green tick means confirm, yellow-black strips mean security, gray means utility application<br>
- A unique, simple, recognizable design. Your brain sees it a few times and henceforth only looks for the icon, because it's less strain than reading the text.<br> <br>

If you don't trust me, perhaps you'll believe:<br>
<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Microsoft</a> [microsoft.com] <br>
<a href="http://developer.apple.com/Mac/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIcons/XHIGIcons.html#//apple\_ref/doc/uid/20000967-TP6" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Apple</a> [apple.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for , but the text makes the icon redundant.OK , fifteen pages of complainers who have no idea about HCI now... let me give you a clue .
Icons are beneficial in all interfaces - menus , file managers , toolbars , you name it .
They let you find what you 're looking for faster .
The human brain is optimized to recognize and analyze colors and shapes .
When you 're confronted with a menu of 10 programs , research shows you find yours more easily by looking for the circular blue-and-red icon than the words " Mozilla Firefox " .
Factors in icon design include : - A clear shape .
Firefox is a circle , VS is an infinity symbol , Notepad is a rectangular notebook , and Word is a W in a square .
- Evocative colors .
A red cross means delete , a green tick means confirm , yellow-black strips mean security , gray means utility application - A unique , simple , recognizable design .
Your brain sees it a few times and henceforth only looks for the icon , because it 's less strain than reading the text .
If you do n't trust me , perhaps you 'll believe : Microsoft [ microsoft.com ] Apple [ apple.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for, but the text makes the icon redundant.OK, fifteen pages of complainers who have no idea about HCI now... let me give you a clue.
Icons are beneficial in all interfaces - menus, file managers, toolbars, you name it.
They let you find what you're looking for faster.
The human brain is optimized to recognize and analyze colors and shapes.
When you're confronted with a menu of 10 programs, research shows you find yours more easily by looking for the circular blue-and-red icon than the words "Mozilla Firefox".
Factors in icon design include:
- A clear shape.
Firefox is a circle, VS is an infinity symbol, Notepad is a rectangular notebook, and Word is a W in a square.
- Evocative colors.
A red cross means delete, a green tick means confirm, yellow-black strips mean security, gray means utility application
- A unique, simple, recognizable design.
Your brain sees it a few times and henceforth only looks for the icon, because it's less strain than reading the text.
If you don't trust me, perhaps you'll believe:
Microsoft [microsoft.com] 
Apple [apple.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860336</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264180320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But when you look at those screenshots, you see that the more "real" it is the less usable it is.  The steampunk is a good exmaple - it gives an impression of dimension and reality, but that impression has *no* effect on function.  This means in terms of making the system easier to comprehend, it's a step backward -- now you have something aesthetically appealing, but functionally confusing. The meaning conveyed by the eye candy is actively misleading unless you already know the system to begin with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But when you look at those screenshots , you see that the more " real " it is the less usable it is .
The steampunk is a good exmaple - it gives an impression of dimension and reality , but that impression has * no * effect on function .
This means in terms of making the system easier to comprehend , it 's a step backward -- now you have something aesthetically appealing , but functionally confusing .
The meaning conveyed by the eye candy is actively misleading unless you already know the system to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when you look at those screenshots, you see that the more "real" it is the less usable it is.
The steampunk is a good exmaple - it gives an impression of dimension and reality, but that impression has *no* effect on function.
This means in terms of making the system easier to comprehend, it's a step backward -- now you have something aesthetically appealing, but functionally confusing.
The meaning conveyed by the eye candy is actively misleading unless you already know the system to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859798</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1264177740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is actually one of the problems with Linux interfaces. They get so stuck on the THEME and not much on user usability.</p><p>When Mac OSX first came out, it was bright and colorful. Icons were eye popping. Over the various iterations, Apple toned down the interface. It went from candy striped to stainless steel to steel gray, icons became simpler, and color was more carefully used. The early Aqua theme did its job of making the Mac look eye popping fresh compared to Windows. XP even took the cartoony color schemes, to the heights of uglitude.</p><p>However, although Mac fanboys whined about the changes in Aqua (and toning down the colors), it actually improved the interface. The simplification of the icons improved readability. The reduction of color saturation improved the look and made the interface less distracting.</p><p>We must keep in mind the purpose of the GUI is not to create really cool looking desktops, but to help the user navigate. You notice that the Mac OSX interface has no concept of themes. You can't change the skins of the windows. You can't edit the look and feel of the menus. (I don't think you can even change the fonts). The taskbar can only be on the bottom or side. Yet, the Mac OSX interface is the standard that other GUIs try to meet.</p><p>The Mac's desktop's trick is not to be a personal expression of the user, but to help the user navigate. Retro style windows and desktops, Geek themes, and all the fancy 3D icons do none of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is actually one of the problems with Linux interfaces .
They get so stuck on the THEME and not much on user usability.When Mac OSX first came out , it was bright and colorful .
Icons were eye popping .
Over the various iterations , Apple toned down the interface .
It went from candy striped to stainless steel to steel gray , icons became simpler , and color was more carefully used .
The early Aqua theme did its job of making the Mac look eye popping fresh compared to Windows .
XP even took the cartoony color schemes , to the heights of uglitude.However , although Mac fanboys whined about the changes in Aqua ( and toning down the colors ) , it actually improved the interface .
The simplification of the icons improved readability .
The reduction of color saturation improved the look and made the interface less distracting.We must keep in mind the purpose of the GUI is not to create really cool looking desktops , but to help the user navigate .
You notice that the Mac OSX interface has no concept of themes .
You ca n't change the skins of the windows .
You ca n't edit the look and feel of the menus .
( I do n't think you can even change the fonts ) .
The taskbar can only be on the bottom or side .
Yet , the Mac OSX interface is the standard that other GUIs try to meet.The Mac 's desktop 's trick is not to be a personal expression of the user , but to help the user navigate .
Retro style windows and desktops , Geek themes , and all the fancy 3D icons do none of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is actually one of the problems with Linux interfaces.
They get so stuck on the THEME and not much on user usability.When Mac OSX first came out, it was bright and colorful.
Icons were eye popping.
Over the various iterations, Apple toned down the interface.
It went from candy striped to stainless steel to steel gray, icons became simpler, and color was more carefully used.
The early Aqua theme did its job of making the Mac look eye popping fresh compared to Windows.
XP even took the cartoony color schemes, to the heights of uglitude.However, although Mac fanboys whined about the changes in Aqua (and toning down the colors), it actually improved the interface.
The simplification of the icons improved readability.
The reduction of color saturation improved the look and made the interface less distracting.We must keep in mind the purpose of the GUI is not to create really cool looking desktops, but to help the user navigate.
You notice that the Mac OSX interface has no concept of themes.
You can't change the skins of the windows.
You can't edit the look and feel of the menus.
(I don't think you can even change the fonts).
The taskbar can only be on the bottom or side.
Yet, the Mac OSX interface is the standard that other GUIs try to meet.The Mac's desktop's trick is not to be a personal expression of the user, but to help the user navigate.
Retro style windows and desktops, Geek themes, and all the fancy 3D icons do none of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860940</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264183320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a matter of being cheap and lazy. They put a stylized picture of a light on your car's dash so they don't have to spell "headlight" in as many languages as they have markets.</p><p>I'd pay a few extra bucks for a Toyota if it said "headlights" in English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a matter of being cheap and lazy .
They put a stylized picture of a light on your car 's dash so they do n't have to spell " headlight " in as many languages as they have markets.I 'd pay a few extra bucks for a Toyota if it said " headlights " in English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a matter of being cheap and lazy.
They put a stylized picture of a light on your car's dash so they don't have to spell "headlight" in as many languages as they have markets.I'd pay a few extra bucks for a Toyota if it said "headlights" in English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859312</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1264175340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lemmings is the game you're think of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lemmings is the game you 're think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemmings is the game you're think of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092</id>
	<title>Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1264174080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That guy is 100\% right, but there isn't anything new, let alone newsworthy in that post.<br>But it has a few nice examples.</p><p>On the other hand, that guy completly misses the intresting points: How did we end up with a "house" as an icon for your personal files* or a "cog" as a symbol for additional commands in the first place? A Leaf for a Web-Editor? A Trumpet for Network Connection? Lighthouse for a webbrowser?</p><p>* That one sounds easy for an IT-pro who knows that the concept of a "home directory" is older than icons - but that only makes this meaning of "home" an old one, and not an intuitive one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That guy is 100 \ % right , but there is n't anything new , let alone newsworthy in that post.But it has a few nice examples.On the other hand , that guy completly misses the intresting points : How did we end up with a " house " as an icon for your personal files * or a " cog " as a symbol for additional commands in the first place ?
A Leaf for a Web-Editor ?
A Trumpet for Network Connection ?
Lighthouse for a webbrowser ?
* That one sounds easy for an IT-pro who knows that the concept of a " home directory " is older than icons - but that only makes this meaning of " home " an old one , and not an intuitive one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That guy is 100\% right, but there isn't anything new, let alone newsworthy in that post.But it has a few nice examples.On the other hand, that guy completly misses the intresting points: How did we end up with a "house" as an icon for your personal files* or a "cog" as a symbol for additional commands in the first place?
A Leaf for a Web-Editor?
A Trumpet for Network Connection?
Lighthouse for a webbrowser?
* That one sounds easy for an IT-pro who knows that the concept of a "home directory" is older than icons - but that only makes this meaning of "home" an old one, and not an intuitive one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861208</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264184460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I forget what the application (or was it a game?) was... probably on the Amiga. The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.</p><p>In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right, presumably to indicate movement. Most people i've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.</p><p>To be fair, there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels...</p></div><p>It was on the Amiga and it was Lemmings</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I forget what the application ( or was it a game ?
) was... probably on the Amiga .
The 'pause ' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run ' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right , presumably to indicate movement .
Most people i 've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.To be fair , there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels...It was on the Amiga and it was Lemmings</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forget what the application (or was it a game?
) was... probably on the Amiga.
The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right, presumably to indicate movement.
Most people i've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.To be fair, there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels...It was on the Amiga and it was Lemmings
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842</id>
	<title>many words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My, that was many words to say one thing over and over and over again. Pretty pictures though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My , that was many words to say one thing over and over and over again .
Pretty pictures though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My, that was many words to say one thing over and over and over again.
Pretty pictures though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm just old (well, I am) but I absolutely HATE icons, on my computer screen and in my car and other devices. Icons are for illiterates (including those who are literate in other languages).</p><p>Most icons are abysmal. IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser. I'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for, but the text makes the icon redundant. Having an icon without the text is, in my opinion, stupid. It has nothing to do with whether or not an icon is photorealistic or stylized.</p><p>*Sigh* in six thousand years we've progressed from hieroglyphics (which can't be decoded without a rosetta stone) to alphabets and printed text, back to hieroglyphics (which can't be decoded without text).</p><p>Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up. In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just old ( well , I am ) but I absolutely HATE icons , on my computer screen and in my car and other devices .
Icons are for illiterates ( including those who are literate in other languages ) .Most icons are abysmal .
IE 's icon is a lower case " e " on what appears to be paper ; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser .
I 'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for , but the text makes the icon redundant .
Having an icon without the text is , in my opinion , stupid .
It has nothing to do with whether or not an icon is photorealistic or stylized .
* Sigh * in six thousand years we 've progressed from hieroglyphics ( which ca n't be decoded without a rosetta stone ) to alphabets and printed text , back to hieroglyphics ( which ca n't be decoded without text ) .Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up .
In my car I 'd far rather have the word " headlights " than a stylized picture of a headlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just old (well, I am) but I absolutely HATE icons, on my computer screen and in my car and other devices.
Icons are for illiterates (including those who are literate in other languages).Most icons are abysmal.
IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser.
I'm thankful that they put text underneath the icons so I can tell WTF the icon is for, but the text makes the icon redundant.
Having an icon without the text is, in my opinion, stupid.
It has nothing to do with whether or not an icon is photorealistic or stylized.
*Sigh* in six thousand years we've progressed from hieroglyphics (which can't be decoded without a rosetta stone) to alphabets and printed text, back to hieroglyphics (which can't be decoded without text).Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up.
In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860840</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264182780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My ultimate theme would probably look like a collaboration between Donald Knuth and Edward Tufte.  Today's display technology is not yet comparable to print, though, so much of the elegance would be lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My ultimate theme would probably look like a collaboration between Donald Knuth and Edward Tufte .
Today 's display technology is not yet comparable to print , though , so much of the elegance would be lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ultimate theme would probably look like a collaboration between Donald Knuth and Edward Tufte.
Today's display technology is not yet comparable to print, though, so much of the elegance would be lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1264175100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds awesome! Don't think I'd want to use it for any length of time though...</p><p>I am surprised at the lack of interesting interfaces though. Windows, OSX and most Linux distros are all basically variations on a theme - you've got your program windows, your menu (at the bottom or at the top, or if you're really feeling wild <em>at the side!</em>) and that's about it. Everything is grouped either vertically or horizontally - obviously curves are harder to program, but surely not <em>that</em> difficult? How about a menu that radiated out from (for example) the start menu, with groups of icons on each 'spoke'? I'd like that - one spoke for internet apps, one for media, one for development tools. Windows key+1 for one spoke, windows+2 for another...</p><p>While I'm on the subject does anyone know of any interesting interfaces? I remember trying lightstep years ago...ran like a bag of shit and the interfaces mostly sucked but there were some good ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds awesome !
Do n't think I 'd want to use it for any length of time though...I am surprised at the lack of interesting interfaces though .
Windows , OSX and most Linux distros are all basically variations on a theme - you 've got your program windows , your menu ( at the bottom or at the top , or if you 're really feeling wild at the side !
) and that 's about it .
Everything is grouped either vertically or horizontally - obviously curves are harder to program , but surely not that difficult ?
How about a menu that radiated out from ( for example ) the start menu , with groups of icons on each 'spoke ' ?
I 'd like that - one spoke for internet apps , one for media , one for development tools .
Windows key + 1 for one spoke , windows + 2 for another...While I 'm on the subject does anyone know of any interesting interfaces ?
I remember trying lightstep years ago...ran like a bag of shit and the interfaces mostly sucked but there were some good ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds awesome!
Don't think I'd want to use it for any length of time though...I am surprised at the lack of interesting interfaces though.
Windows, OSX and most Linux distros are all basically variations on a theme - you've got your program windows, your menu (at the bottom or at the top, or if you're really feeling wild at the side!
) and that's about it.
Everything is grouped either vertically or horizontally - obviously curves are harder to program, but surely not that difficult?
How about a menu that radiated out from (for example) the start menu, with groups of icons on each 'spoke'?
I'd like that - one spoke for internet apps, one for media, one for development tools.
Windows key+1 for one spoke, windows+2 for another...While I'm on the subject does anyone know of any interesting interfaces?
I remember trying lightstep years ago...ran like a bag of shit and the interfaces mostly sucked but there were some good ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863886</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, most applications are designed for <i>humans</i>, after all. If there are symbols and associations that every human uses, why not use them? I mean, if you're going to be pedantic to this level - consider what an interface designer might say is "best (intuitive) practices" for the location of a Next and Previous button (whatever that means in the application). They would say, without a doubt, that Next goes on the right and Previous goes on the left. But that's culturally specific - many Middle Eastern languages are written right-to-left, and many Asian languages are written vertically! There is almost no scope for expression of even the most basic functionality when you remove cultural symbolism/convention. So, the best solution is clearly to make the interface as obvious to the widest range of people as possible (and that's by using conventions).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , most applications are designed for humans , after all .
If there are symbols and associations that every human uses , why not use them ?
I mean , if you 're going to be pedantic to this level - consider what an interface designer might say is " best ( intuitive ) practices " for the location of a Next and Previous button ( whatever that means in the application ) .
They would say , without a doubt , that Next goes on the right and Previous goes on the left .
But that 's culturally specific - many Middle Eastern languages are written right-to-left , and many Asian languages are written vertically !
There is almost no scope for expression of even the most basic functionality when you remove cultural symbolism/convention .
So , the best solution is clearly to make the interface as obvious to the widest range of people as possible ( and that 's by using conventions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, most applications are designed for humans, after all.
If there are symbols and associations that every human uses, why not use them?
I mean, if you're going to be pedantic to this level - consider what an interface designer might say is "best (intuitive) practices" for the location of a Next and Previous button (whatever that means in the application).
They would say, without a doubt, that Next goes on the right and Previous goes on the left.
But that's culturally specific - many Middle Eastern languages are written right-to-left, and many Asian languages are written vertically!
There is almost no scope for expression of even the most basic functionality when you remove cultural symbolism/convention.
So, the best solution is clearly to make the interface as obvious to the widest range of people as possible (and that's by using conventions).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860620</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264181640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lemme guess--you're a developer, right?  I'm amazed that so many people on slashdot are so fervently anti-good-design anything...as if good design is relative and not worth the time and money...even though it is the #1 feature that most people consider when purchasing something. Most people look at something, see if it has the bare minimum requirements for what they want, then pick the one that looks/works the nicest (to them) for the best price.</p><p>You do realize that the best universities all have fields of study solely dedicated to UI/design/Human Factors Engineering etc., don't you?  If it isn't important, than how can so many of us have lucrative and rewarding careers in it?</p><p>Furthermore, why do the people who just don't "get it" when it comes to design spend so much time slamming it? I can't wrap my brain around any code other than some simplistic Action Scripting and Visual Basic, but I don't bitch an moan about how unimportant programming is to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lem me guess--you 're a developer , right ?
I 'm amazed that so many people on slashdot are so fervently anti-good-design anything...as if good design is relative and not worth the time and money...even though it is the # 1 feature that most people consider when purchasing something .
Most people look at something , see if it has the bare minimum requirements for what they want , then pick the one that looks/works the nicest ( to them ) for the best price.You do realize that the best universities all have fields of study solely dedicated to UI/design/Human Factors Engineering etc. , do n't you ?
If it is n't important , than how can so many of us have lucrative and rewarding careers in it ? Furthermore , why do the people who just do n't " get it " when it comes to design spend so much time slamming it ?
I ca n't wrap my brain around any code other than some simplistic Action Scripting and Visual Basic , but I do n't bitch an moan about how unimportant programming is to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemme guess--you're a developer, right?
I'm amazed that so many people on slashdot are so fervently anti-good-design anything...as if good design is relative and not worth the time and money...even though it is the #1 feature that most people consider when purchasing something.
Most people look at something, see if it has the bare minimum requirements for what they want, then pick the one that looks/works the nicest (to them) for the best price.You do realize that the best universities all have fields of study solely dedicated to UI/design/Human Factors Engineering etc., don't you?
If it isn't important, than how can so many of us have lucrative and rewarding careers in it?Furthermore, why do the people who just don't "get it" when it comes to design spend so much time slamming it?
I can't wrap my brain around any code other than some simplistic Action Scripting and Visual Basic, but I don't bitch an moan about how unimportant programming is to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856</id>
	<title>Who else remembers the horror?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of the period in the early to mid 90's when pretty much every second-string audio player program, and there were a fair few in those days, decided that the One True Interface for any audio program was an inscrutable bitmap reproduction of a knobs-n'-sliders 70's stereo system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the period in the early to mid 90 's when pretty much every second-string audio player program , and there were a fair few in those days , decided that the One True Interface for any audio program was an inscrutable bitmap reproduction of a knobs-n'-sliders 70 's stereo system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the period in the early to mid 90's when pretty much every second-string audio player program, and there were a fair few in those days, decided that the One True Interface for any audio program was an inscrutable bitmap reproduction of a knobs-n'-sliders 70's stereo system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858928</id>
	<title>Well hot damn!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1264173240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That has to be she shortest stub I've ever seen on Slashdot. I wonder if it's possible to say that the stub is small, and the fact that I want to make this comment shorter than the stub, in less words than are in the stub?<br> <br>1, 2, 3, 4... 25, 26, 27, 28 to beat!<br> <br>1, 2, 3... 47, 48, 49.<br> <br>Shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That has to be she shortest stub I 've ever seen on Slashdot .
I wonder if it 's possible to say that the stub is small , and the fact that I want to make this comment shorter than the stub , in less words than are in the stub ?
1 , 2 , 3 , 4... 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 to beat !
1 , 2 , 3... 47 , 48 , 49 .
Shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has to be she shortest stub I've ever seen on Slashdot.
I wonder if it's possible to say that the stub is small, and the fact that I want to make this comment shorter than the stub, in less words than are in the stub?
1, 2, 3, 4... 25, 26, 27, 28 to beat!
1, 2, 3... 47, 48, 49.
Shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863744</id>
	<title>See if you can crash Fogbugz!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264156140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of the TFA, you can submit a "bug" into his blog. No log in, no required typing, nothing.</p><p>Let's see how high we can take his case numbers. It's at 38 now. Log a blank bug today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the TFA , you can submit a " bug " into his blog .
No log in , no required typing , nothing.Let 's see how high we can take his case numbers .
It 's at 38 now .
Log a blank bug today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the TFA, you can submit a "bug" into his blog.
No log in, no required typing, nothing.Let's see how high we can take his case numbers.
It's at 38 now.
Log a blank bug today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861096</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>Dr. Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1264183920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Words are better for me.  I keep getting tripped up on the elevator buttons....

</p><p> [&gt;|&lt;]

</p><p>When somebody is running to the door, I look at that and think... Are the arrows like my fingers, pulling at the narrow space of the door?  Why are the arrows pointing at closing a door which is already closed?  Am I hitting the button to solve the problem of the doors closing?

</p><p>By then, I've probably hit the wrong button and the person is annoyed with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Words are better for me .
I keep getting tripped up on the elevator buttons... . [ &gt; | When somebody is running to the door , I look at that and think... Are the arrows like my fingers , pulling at the narrow space of the door ?
Why are the arrows pointing at closing a door which is already closed ?
Am I hitting the button to solve the problem of the doors closing ?
By then , I 've probably hit the wrong button and the person is annoyed with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Words are better for me.
I keep getting tripped up on the elevator buttons....

 [&gt;|When somebody is running to the door, I look at that and think... Are the arrows like my fingers, pulling at the narrow space of the door?
Why are the arrows pointing at closing a door which is already closed?
Am I hitting the button to solve the problem of the doors closing?
By then, I've probably hit the wrong button and the person is annoyed with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863970</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264157220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on what they think the value of clicking is. A lot of people won't stray from their routine. They will always use Outlook Express and only click on the things they were taught to use.
<br> <br>
Yet when promised a better sex life or money, something they really want, then they'll be willing to do what they're told and click whatever they need to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what they think the value of clicking is .
A lot of people wo n't stray from their routine .
They will always use Outlook Express and only click on the things they were taught to use .
Yet when promised a better sex life or money , something they really want , then they 'll be willing to do what they 're told and click whatever they need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what they think the value of clicking is.
A lot of people won't stray from their routine.
They will always use Outlook Express and only click on the things they were taught to use.
Yet when promised a better sex life or money, something they really want, then they'll be willing to do what they're told and click whatever they need to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888632</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264427520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Sweden and it makes me absolutely rabid when applications try to second-guess my location by looking at the keyboard layout rather than my other locale settings (US).</p><p>See, however you may attempt to avoid it, our computers inevitable get filled with a mixture of swedish and english menu entries. Commands are truncated because their window was designed around the english phrase and the swedish is longer. Menus sorting commands alphabetically meaning that on one computer "Arrange" is highest where on the next computer "F&#246;rdela" is somewhere in the middle.</p><p>I try to maintain a purely english computing environment - because I KNOW ENGLISH - but the damn programmers try to outsmart me and push swedish interfaces on me all the time.</p><p>There is no need for localized languages. If you can't learn what "Open file" does, you should not own a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Sweden and it makes me absolutely rabid when applications try to second-guess my location by looking at the keyboard layout rather than my other locale settings ( US ) .See , however you may attempt to avoid it , our computers inevitable get filled with a mixture of swedish and english menu entries .
Commands are truncated because their window was designed around the english phrase and the swedish is longer .
Menus sorting commands alphabetically meaning that on one computer " Arrange " is highest where on the next computer " F   rdela " is somewhere in the middle.I try to maintain a purely english computing environment - because I KNOW ENGLISH - but the damn programmers try to outsmart me and push swedish interfaces on me all the time.There is no need for localized languages .
If you ca n't learn what " Open file " does , you should not own a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Sweden and it makes me absolutely rabid when applications try to second-guess my location by looking at the keyboard layout rather than my other locale settings (US).See, however you may attempt to avoid it, our computers inevitable get filled with a mixture of swedish and english menu entries.
Commands are truncated because their window was designed around the english phrase and the swedish is longer.
Menus sorting commands alphabetically meaning that on one computer "Arrange" is highest where on the next computer "Fördela" is somewhere in the middle.I try to maintain a purely english computing environment - because I KNOW ENGLISH - but the damn programmers try to outsmart me and push swedish interfaces on me all the time.There is no need for localized languages.
If you can't learn what "Open file" does, you should not own a computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859194</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1264174680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem in UI design is using graphics for controls at all. USE WORDS! People not only know what clicking somewhere does, but they can search for the button they want with CTRL-F.</p><p>The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day. Then they will have a chance to learn your symbols and will appreciate the screenspace saving. The other 99\% of apps should use no icon sets. Users can read. Take advantage of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem in UI design is using graphics for controls at all .
USE WORDS !
People not only know what clicking somewhere does , but they can search for the button they want with CTRL-F.The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you 're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day .
Then they will have a chance to learn your symbols and will appreciate the screenspace saving .
The other 99 \ % of apps should use no icon sets .
Users can read .
Take advantage of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem in UI design is using graphics for controls at all.
USE WORDS!
People not only know what clicking somewhere does, but they can search for the button they want with CTRL-F.The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day.
Then they will have a chance to learn your symbols and will appreciate the screenspace saving.
The other 99\% of apps should use no icon sets.
Users can read.
Take advantage of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864916</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264162560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh MY. that is so true. when people discuss computer software usability issues, they somehow forget about lots of other software that... just sucks.</p><p>my gf has a bmw, a recent model. it has electronic dasboard. so far so good. then, some day, she gets a warning on there. by description, it looks like two parenthesis connected by a squirly thing at one end and a question mark in the middle. now that's a SERIOUS wtf. so she calls a relative with good automobile knowledge, who by description decides it's a sensor for handbrake/brake problem. now that's important... except that the icons turns out to represent a fucking tire pressure. instead of showing brake pads and a spring, it shows round tire walls and the tire surface.</p><p>hint, bmw developrs : that is NOT intuitive. it's crap for intuitivity.</p><p>now, the display itself is electronic. it could change from the icon to some text - whatever language, english would do, saying "tire pressure" - and actually it has enough place to show the icon and the text in smaller font at the same time.</p><p>also, if the dashboard decides there's some problem - like gasoline levels dropping below you being able to go for 100 km or so, it just shows a large icon where common everyday info is. as a result it means you have to fiddle with the controls on the light switch if you want to see some information like the temperature while having smaller amount of the gasoline. now that is surely not improving safety - instead it could flash the error icon every now and then so that user - driver - is not distracted from the road that much.</p><p>it seems like engineers in other industries are allowed to create really crap usability products, while general computer software industry gets the heat. of course, that might be a good thing overall and lead to better software<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>it's not just bmw, obviously. mobile phones suck big bertha usability wise, other car vendors are not any better and so on. i've decided that these people are trying hard, but just suck at making things really usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh MY .
that is so true .
when people discuss computer software usability issues , they somehow forget about lots of other software that... just sucks.my gf has a bmw , a recent model .
it has electronic dasboard .
so far so good .
then , some day , she gets a warning on there .
by description , it looks like two parenthesis connected by a squirly thing at one end and a question mark in the middle .
now that 's a SERIOUS wtf .
so she calls a relative with good automobile knowledge , who by description decides it 's a sensor for handbrake/brake problem .
now that 's important... except that the icons turns out to represent a fucking tire pressure .
instead of showing brake pads and a spring , it shows round tire walls and the tire surface.hint , bmw developrs : that is NOT intuitive .
it 's crap for intuitivity.now , the display itself is electronic .
it could change from the icon to some text - whatever language , english would do , saying " tire pressure " - and actually it has enough place to show the icon and the text in smaller font at the same time.also , if the dashboard decides there 's some problem - like gasoline levels dropping below you being able to go for 100 km or so , it just shows a large icon where common everyday info is .
as a result it means you have to fiddle with the controls on the light switch if you want to see some information like the temperature while having smaller amount of the gasoline .
now that is surely not improving safety - instead it could flash the error icon every now and then so that user - driver - is not distracted from the road that much.it seems like engineers in other industries are allowed to create really crap usability products , while general computer software industry gets the heat .
of course , that might be a good thing overall and lead to better software : ) it 's not just bmw , obviously .
mobile phones suck big bertha usability wise , other car vendors are not any better and so on .
i 've decided that these people are trying hard , but just suck at making things really usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh MY.
that is so true.
when people discuss computer software usability issues, they somehow forget about lots of other software that... just sucks.my gf has a bmw, a recent model.
it has electronic dasboard.
so far so good.
then, some day, she gets a warning on there.
by description, it looks like two parenthesis connected by a squirly thing at one end and a question mark in the middle.
now that's a SERIOUS wtf.
so she calls a relative with good automobile knowledge, who by description decides it's a sensor for handbrake/brake problem.
now that's important... except that the icons turns out to represent a fucking tire pressure.
instead of showing brake pads and a spring, it shows round tire walls and the tire surface.hint, bmw developrs : that is NOT intuitive.
it's crap for intuitivity.now, the display itself is electronic.
it could change from the icon to some text - whatever language, english would do, saying "tire pressure" - and actually it has enough place to show the icon and the text in smaller font at the same time.also, if the dashboard decides there's some problem - like gasoline levels dropping below you being able to go for 100 km or so, it just shows a large icon where common everyday info is.
as a result it means you have to fiddle with the controls on the light switch if you want to see some information like the temperature while having smaller amount of the gasoline.
now that is surely not improving safety - instead it could flash the error icon every now and then so that user - driver - is not distracted from the road that much.it seems like engineers in other industries are allowed to create really crap usability products, while general computer software industry gets the heat.
of course, that might be a good thing overall and lead to better software :)it's not just bmw, obviously.
mobile phones suck big bertha usability wise, other car vendors are not any better and so on.
i've decided that these people are trying hard, but just suck at making things really usable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864048</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264157520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must have missed the graph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must have missed the graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must have missed the graph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863800</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1264156440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is to make it as abstract as possible while still being clearly recognizable as itself.  Aesthetics is not a field that lends itself to being reduced to numbers.  I found the answer to be insightful; it helped further my understanding of why I prefer (much of) the OS X interface to Windows and Linux interfaces: it seems to hit the sweet spot of abstraction where the others trend towards realism or flashiness--though this is certainly not universal in the Linux world.</p><p>What sort of insight were you looking for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is to make it as abstract as possible while still being clearly recognizable as itself .
Aesthetics is not a field that lends itself to being reduced to numbers .
I found the answer to be insightful ; it helped further my understanding of why I prefer ( much of ) the OS X interface to Windows and Linux interfaces : it seems to hit the sweet spot of abstraction where the others trend towards realism or flashiness--though this is certainly not universal in the Linux world.What sort of insight were you looking for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is to make it as abstract as possible while still being clearly recognizable as itself.
Aesthetics is not a field that lends itself to being reduced to numbers.
I found the answer to be insightful; it helped further my understanding of why I prefer (much of) the OS X interface to Windows and Linux interfaces: it seems to hit the sweet spot of abstraction where the others trend towards realism or flashiness--though this is certainly not universal in the Linux world.What sort of insight were you looking for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264174440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My car's interior is the worst example of that. Thanks to the internationalization of the automobile industry (and having no set standards), every control in my car (and many others) is now identified by an icon instead of a label. And many of the icons make no sense whatsoever. So every time I get in a new rental car, I have to figure out whether I'm turning on the heater or the windshield wipers with this control, or what the mysterious smiley-face-looking button does. They build a $20000+ car and can't spring for a few lousy labels in the local language?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My car 's interior is the worst example of that .
Thanks to the internationalization of the automobile industry ( and having no set standards ) , every control in my car ( and many others ) is now identified by an icon instead of a label .
And many of the icons make no sense whatsoever .
So every time I get in a new rental car , I have to figure out whether I 'm turning on the heater or the windshield wipers with this control , or what the mysterious smiley-face-looking button does .
They build a $ 20000 + car and ca n't spring for a few lousy labels in the local language ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My car's interior is the worst example of that.
Thanks to the internationalization of the automobile industry (and having no set standards), every control in my car (and many others) is now identified by an icon instead of a label.
And many of the icons make no sense whatsoever.
So every time I get in a new rental car, I have to figure out whether I'm turning on the heater or the windshield wipers with this control, or what the mysterious smiley-face-looking button does.
They build a $20000+ car and can't spring for a few lousy labels in the local language?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860926</id>
	<title>Re:Who else remembers the horror?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1264183200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank god that Winamp saved us all.</p><p>But, seriously.  Winamp has one of the best user interfaces I know of.  It's not particularly pretty, and can be a little unintuitive at first.  However, in terms of making efficient and elegant use of screen-space, nothing even comes close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank god that Winamp saved us all.But , seriously .
Winamp has one of the best user interfaces I know of .
It 's not particularly pretty , and can be a little unintuitive at first .
However , in terms of making efficient and elegant use of screen-space , nothing even comes close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank god that Winamp saved us all.But, seriously.
Winamp has one of the best user interfaces I know of.
It's not particularly pretty, and can be a little unintuitive at first.
However, in terms of making efficient and elegant use of screen-space, nothing even comes close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862034</id>
	<title>Re:Who else remembers the horror?</title>
	<author>watergeus</author>
	<datestamp>1264189560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the GUI of Propellerhead (music software) is great. Just realistic amps, synthesizers and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the GUI of Propellerhead ( music software ) is great .
Just realistic amps , synthesizers and ... cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the GUI of Propellerhead (music software) is great.
Just realistic amps, synthesizers and ... cables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862794</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper principle, is to let the UI grow with the user. E.g. a desktop video player. At first it could have a menu with all the functions listed as text, with a long description if you hover over it.<br>Then when you get used to it, the main functions could become icons to click (e.g. play/open/ffwd), and then they could become shortcuts without any icons at all.</p><p>The best conventional solution I saw, was to always show the icon and shortcut right in the menu item, so that you can learn to associate them. Of course that&rsquo;still a long shot from an adapting UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper principle , is to let the UI grow with the user .
E.g. a desktop video player .
At first it could have a menu with all the functions listed as text , with a long description if you hover over it.Then when you get used to it , the main functions could become icons to click ( e.g .
play/open/ffwd ) , and then they could become shortcuts without any icons at all.The best conventional solution I saw , was to always show the icon and shortcut right in the menu item , so that you can learn to associate them .
Of course that    still a long shot from an adapting UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper principle, is to let the UI grow with the user.
E.g. a desktop video player.
At first it could have a menu with all the functions listed as text, with a long description if you hover over it.Then when you get used to it, the main functions could become icons to click (e.g.
play/open/ffwd), and then they could become shortcuts without any icons at all.The best conventional solution I saw, was to always show the icon and shortcut right in the menu item, so that you can learn to associate them.
Of course that’still a long shot from an adapting UI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860686</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Yoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1264182000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most icons are abysmal. IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser.</p></div></blockquote><p>
With few people having a clue what the "web" was back then or what a "browser" was supposed to do with it, what should've been the icon of choice?<br> <br>

A globe? No, already used for trade and designating "international". A highway? No. So, we end up with a red O, a stylized fox around a globe, a blue E and a compass. None of 'm having to do with "web", or with "browsing".</p><blockquote><div><p>Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

People can't aim their mouse properly. You can't fit lots of text on a mobile device. Icons provide a big click area, and when you're not wearing glasses you can generally recognize the icon by its color, while text would be a gray blur. Icons have unique silhouettes which increase recognizability. Enough good reasons to use 'm.</p><blockquote><div><p>In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Yet icons can make the difference between dipped beam and main beam immediately obvious, while the text "headlight, main beam" would be too verbose, and abbreviations would be completely lethal. Also, you can't order manufacturers which fonts to use - but icons can be standardized without too much trouble, and that way you can ship your cars to any country you want without having to localize anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most icons are abysmal .
IE 's icon is a lower case " e " on what appears to be paper ; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser .
With few people having a clue what the " web " was back then or what a " browser " was supposed to do with it , what should 've been the icon of choice ?
A globe ?
No , already used for trade and designating " international " .
A highway ?
No. So , we end up with a red O , a stylized fox around a globe , a blue E and a compass .
None of 'm having to do with " web " , or with " browsing " .Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up .
People ca n't aim their mouse properly .
You ca n't fit lots of text on a mobile device .
Icons provide a big click area , and when you 're not wearing glasses you can generally recognize the icon by its color , while text would be a gray blur .
Icons have unique silhouettes which increase recognizability .
Enough good reasons to use 'm.In my car I 'd far rather have the word " headlights " than a stylized picture of a headlight .
Yet icons can make the difference between dipped beam and main beam immediately obvious , while the text " headlight , main beam " would be too verbose , and abbreviations would be completely lethal .
Also , you ca n't order manufacturers which fonts to use - but icons can be standardized without too much trouble , and that way you can ship your cars to any country you want without having to localize anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most icons are abysmal.
IE's icon is a lower case "e" on what appears to be paper; if you had never used IE you would have no clue that it was a web browser.
With few people having a clue what the "web" was back then or what a "browser" was supposed to do with it, what should've been the icon of choice?
A globe?
No, already used for trade and designating "international".
A highway?
No. So, we end up with a red O, a stylized fox around a globe, a blue E and a compass.
None of 'm having to do with "web", or with "browsing".Icons serve no purpose on a computer except to pretty it up.
People can't aim their mouse properly.
You can't fit lots of text on a mobile device.
Icons provide a big click area, and when you're not wearing glasses you can generally recognize the icon by its color, while text would be a gray blur.
Icons have unique silhouettes which increase recognizability.
Enough good reasons to use 'm.In my car I'd far rather have the word "headlights" than a stylized picture of a headlight.
Yet icons can make the difference between dipped beam and main beam immediately obvious, while the text "headlight, main beam" would be too verbose, and abbreviations would be completely lethal.
Also, you can't order manufacturers which fonts to use - but icons can be standardized without too much trouble, and that way you can ship your cars to any country you want without having to localize anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</id>
	<title>I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1264174020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish there were more studies about how some people (such as myself) simply cannot deduce the meaning of icons without a lot of effort.  Some of the "meaningful" icons presented in the article still don't mean anything to me.  I'm constantly hovering over the same icons to get the "tooltip" to tell me what I'm looking for.  CLI?  No problem...the command I need is instantly in my grasp.  GUI?  I'm forever having to stop, pause, and process icons to figure out what the hell they actually mean.  GUI menus with words instead of icons are the best for me in the GUI world: Instant recognition, no extra processing steps required.</p><p>Am I the only icon-impaired person out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish there were more studies about how some people ( such as myself ) simply can not deduce the meaning of icons without a lot of effort .
Some of the " meaningful " icons presented in the article still do n't mean anything to me .
I 'm constantly hovering over the same icons to get the " tooltip " to tell me what I 'm looking for .
CLI ? No problem...the command I need is instantly in my grasp .
GUI ? I 'm forever having to stop , pause , and process icons to figure out what the hell they actually mean .
GUI menus with words instead of icons are the best for me in the GUI world : Instant recognition , no extra processing steps required.Am I the only icon-impaired person out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish there were more studies about how some people (such as myself) simply cannot deduce the meaning of icons without a lot of effort.
Some of the "meaningful" icons presented in the article still don't mean anything to me.
I'm constantly hovering over the same icons to get the "tooltip" to tell me what I'm looking for.
CLI?  No problem...the command I need is instantly in my grasp.
GUI?  I'm forever having to stop, pause, and process icons to figure out what the hell they actually mean.
GUI menus with words instead of icons are the best for me in the GUI world: Instant recognition, no extra processing steps required.Am I the only icon-impaired person out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860334</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264180320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry the rest of us aren't as intelligent as you and needed an article that was articulate and persuasive in its repetition--you know, those elements of good writing we were taught in high school and college?  It's nice to see a technical article on slashdot actually demonstrate some literary skill for once instead of dumping it in order to make more room in one's brain for abstract lines of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry the rest of us are n't as intelligent as you and needed an article that was articulate and persuasive in its repetition--you know , those elements of good writing we were taught in high school and college ?
It 's nice to see a technical article on slashdot actually demonstrate some literary skill for once instead of dumping it in order to make more room in one 's brain for abstract lines of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry the rest of us aren't as intelligent as you and needed an article that was articulate and persuasive in its repetition--you know, those elements of good writing we were taught in high school and college?
It's nice to see a technical article on slashdot actually demonstrate some literary skill for once instead of dumping it in order to make more room in one's brain for abstract lines of code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861538</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>StarsAreAlsoFire</author>
	<datestamp>1264186200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces."<br><br>I don't know who you are, but I wish I worked with you. I hear 'I don't like it, it isn't intuitive enough. I don't know what would be better though.' pretty much every day. What they MEAN is 'It looks different. I'm really comfortable with the old text based system. Why do we need buttons again?'<br><br>A corollary to your statement is that no UI interaction should be irreversible without a warning. Warnings/Alerts should be restricted to important notifications, so as to avoid training the user to blindly accept them.<br><br>It's funny to me (in that painful way) that the average 10 year old can load up the latest video game and be fully into the action in ten, twenty minutes tops. But you put a an average 30 year old in front Excel without a training course and it takes two years before they realize that they can sort tables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's no such thing as " intuitive " computer interfaces .
" I do n't know who you are , but I wish I worked with you .
I hear 'I do n't like it , it is n't intuitive enough .
I do n't know what would be better though .
' pretty much every day .
What they MEAN is 'It looks different .
I 'm really comfortable with the old text based system .
Why do we need buttons again ?
'A corollary to your statement is that no UI interaction should be irreversible without a warning .
Warnings/Alerts should be restricted to important notifications , so as to avoid training the user to blindly accept them.It 's funny to me ( in that painful way ) that the average 10 year old can load up the latest video game and be fully into the action in ten , twenty minutes tops .
But you put a an average 30 year old in front Excel without a training course and it takes two years before they realize that they can sort tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.
"I don't know who you are, but I wish I worked with you.
I hear 'I don't like it, it isn't intuitive enough.
I don't know what would be better though.
' pretty much every day.
What they MEAN is 'It looks different.
I'm really comfortable with the old text based system.
Why do we need buttons again?
'A corollary to your statement is that no UI interaction should be irreversible without a warning.
Warnings/Alerts should be restricted to important notifications, so as to avoid training the user to blindly accept them.It's funny to me (in that painful way) that the average 10 year old can load up the latest video game and be fully into the action in ten, twenty minutes tops.
But you put a an average 30 year old in front Excel without a training course and it takes two years before they realize that they can sort tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860564</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264181340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That guy is 100\% right, but there isn't anything new, let alone newsworthy in that post.</p></div><p>As long as there continues to be bad design, there can never be enough articles like this one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That guy is 100 \ % right , but there is n't anything new , let alone newsworthy in that post.As long as there continues to be bad design , there can never be enough articles like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That guy is 100\% right, but there isn't anything new, let alone newsworthy in that post.As long as there continues to be bad design, there can never be enough articles like this one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860034</id>
	<title>Uncanny!</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264178880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, it's the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/21/1717234/Why-the-Uncanny-Valley-Doesnt-Really-Matter" title="slashdot.org">Uncanny Valley</a> [slashdot.org] in action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , it 's the Uncanny Valley [ slashdot.org ] in action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, it's the Uncanny Valley [slashdot.org] in action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859080</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264174020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... so what was the right answer?</p><p>Why leave us hanging like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... so what was the right answer ? Why leave us hanging like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... so what was the right answer?Why leave us hanging like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860116</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264179240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.</p></div><p>I disagree completely. As a matter of fact, your next sentences proves that there is such a thing as intuitive interfaces by the fact that an intuitive interface is also "discoverable".</p><p>However, that does NOT mean that intuitive interfaces are derived from previous knowledge. This is why people who jump to OSX from Windows have such a hard time with the "intuitive" interface of OSX. They grew used to a poor interface (Window Whatever) and then brought those bad habits with them.</p><p>A truly intuitive interface is one that a user with little experience (not enough to be persuaded to try something out of habit) can just figure out. It's also more than just icons--it's system hierarchy, interfaces, dialogs, visual/audio/animation cues etc. I think iPods/iPhones are good examples of this, since most users are enamored by those products, most likely because they are easy to figure out without having any reference to compare them too (no prior experience).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as " intuitive " computer interfaces.I disagree completely .
As a matter of fact , your next sentences proves that there is such a thing as intuitive interfaces by the fact that an intuitive interface is also " discoverable " .However , that does NOT mean that intuitive interfaces are derived from previous knowledge .
This is why people who jump to OSX from Windows have such a hard time with the " intuitive " interface of OSX .
They grew used to a poor interface ( Window Whatever ) and then brought those bad habits with them.A truly intuitive interface is one that a user with little experience ( not enough to be persuaded to try something out of habit ) can just figure out .
It 's also more than just icons--it 's system hierarchy , interfaces , dialogs , visual/audio/animation cues etc .
I think iPods/iPhones are good examples of this , since most users are enamored by those products , most likely because they are easy to figure out without having any reference to compare them too ( no prior experience ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.I disagree completely.
As a matter of fact, your next sentences proves that there is such a thing as intuitive interfaces by the fact that an intuitive interface is also "discoverable".However, that does NOT mean that intuitive interfaces are derived from previous knowledge.
This is why people who jump to OSX from Windows have such a hard time with the "intuitive" interface of OSX.
They grew used to a poor interface (Window Whatever) and then brought those bad habits with them.A truly intuitive interface is one that a user with little experience (not enough to be persuaded to try something out of habit) can just figure out.
It's also more than just icons--it's system hierarchy, interfaces, dialogs, visual/audio/animation cues etc.
I think iPods/iPhones are good examples of this, since most users are enamored by those products, most likely because they are easy to figure out without having any reference to compare them too (no prior experience).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859576</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure but I have a feeling that was in Lemmings.<br>Someone else here may be able to confirm this.</p><p>Does anyone know for sure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure but I have a feeling that was in Lemmings.Someone else here may be able to confirm this.Does anyone know for sure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure but I have a feeling that was in Lemmings.Someone else here may be able to confirm this.Does anyone know for sure?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861094</id>
	<title>Re:Computer HUD</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264183920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of MacOSX is like this, and I would imagine that NextStep/OpenStep was similarly "photorealistic".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of MacOSX is like this , and I would imagine that NextStep/OpenStep was similarly " photorealistic " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of MacOSX is like this, and I would imagine that NextStep/OpenStep was similarly "photorealistic".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863548</id>
	<title>Disagree...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264155240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got some complaints about the article...</p><p>In his example of the "Home" button, the icon doesn't actually look much like a house.  We recognize it so easily because we mentally match it to what we expect might be there.  Someone with no computer background would recognize a picture of a house before a small, distorted outline.  Ditto for a "smiley face".  It's a deeply embedded cultural thing that a cirle with 2 dots and a line in it represents a face, but the others are really vasly more recognizable.  It would be a better graphic if the faces didn't get angrier and uglier as they got more realistic...  This seems to weight the issue incorrectly.</p><p>The reason the icon looks better than the photo in the example is simple straw man.  OS X uses a silhouette of a house, while the photo was a house in perspective, in color, and most importantly, so SMALL it isn't really recognizable.  Try a photo of one side of a real house, and it can work just as well as the sideways arrow.  Ditto for the camera.  But also, if you only have 32x32 pixels to work with, photo realistic is obviously a bad idea.  If you have the room, however, it can work much better.</p><p>The photo of the toggle switch looks better, IMHO, than the "optimal" drawing.  It's much more clear from the perspective and shadows in the photo which position it's in, and what other options are.  In a configuration dialog, I'd likely click on a photo of a switch next to a label...  A rectangle with a box in it?  That would take me longer to figure out.  A ratio box would probably be better than either, though....</p><p>So while his fundamental point is at least true in a nutshell, that too much detail is distraction, he seems to use the most horrible examples possible, and errs FAR too much on the "simple" side of things, as if the concepts he's accustomed to are universal, and not the learned concepts they clearly are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got some complaints about the article...In his example of the " Home " button , the icon does n't actually look much like a house .
We recognize it so easily because we mentally match it to what we expect might be there .
Someone with no computer background would recognize a picture of a house before a small , distorted outline .
Ditto for a " smiley face " .
It 's a deeply embedded cultural thing that a cirle with 2 dots and a line in it represents a face , but the others are really vasly more recognizable .
It would be a better graphic if the faces did n't get angrier and uglier as they got more realistic... This seems to weight the issue incorrectly.The reason the icon looks better than the photo in the example is simple straw man .
OS X uses a silhouette of a house , while the photo was a house in perspective , in color , and most importantly , so SMALL it is n't really recognizable .
Try a photo of one side of a real house , and it can work just as well as the sideways arrow .
Ditto for the camera .
But also , if you only have 32x32 pixels to work with , photo realistic is obviously a bad idea .
If you have the room , however , it can work much better.The photo of the toggle switch looks better , IMHO , than the " optimal " drawing .
It 's much more clear from the perspective and shadows in the photo which position it 's in , and what other options are .
In a configuration dialog , I 'd likely click on a photo of a switch next to a label... A rectangle with a box in it ?
That would take me longer to figure out .
A ratio box would probably be better than either , though....So while his fundamental point is at least true in a nutshell , that too much detail is distraction , he seems to use the most horrible examples possible , and errs FAR too much on the " simple " side of things , as if the concepts he 's accustomed to are universal , and not the learned concepts they clearly are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got some complaints about the article...In his example of the "Home" button, the icon doesn't actually look much like a house.
We recognize it so easily because we mentally match it to what we expect might be there.
Someone with no computer background would recognize a picture of a house before a small, distorted outline.
Ditto for a "smiley face".
It's a deeply embedded cultural thing that a cirle with 2 dots and a line in it represents a face, but the others are really vasly more recognizable.
It would be a better graphic if the faces didn't get angrier and uglier as they got more realistic...  This seems to weight the issue incorrectly.The reason the icon looks better than the photo in the example is simple straw man.
OS X uses a silhouette of a house, while the photo was a house in perspective, in color, and most importantly, so SMALL it isn't really recognizable.
Try a photo of one side of a real house, and it can work just as well as the sideways arrow.
Ditto for the camera.
But also, if you only have 32x32 pixels to work with, photo realistic is obviously a bad idea.
If you have the room, however, it can work much better.The photo of the toggle switch looks better, IMHO, than the "optimal" drawing.
It's much more clear from the perspective and shadows in the photo which position it's in, and what other options are.
In a configuration dialog, I'd likely click on a photo of a switch next to a label...  A rectangle with a box in it?
That would take me longer to figure out.
A ratio box would probably be better than either, though....So while his fundamental point is at least true in a nutshell, that too much detail is distraction, he seems to use the most horrible examples possible, and errs FAR too much on the "simple" side of things, as if the concepts he's accustomed to are universal, and not the learned concepts they clearly are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859216</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>MisterZimbu</author>
	<datestamp>1264174860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "paws" icon is from Lemmings.  I could imagine it being in other games too, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " paws " icon is from Lemmings .
I could imagine it being in other games too , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "paws" icon is from Lemmings.
I could imagine it being in other games too, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30877382</id>
	<title>The constant push for change</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264336860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good GUIs have been around for a while.  The problem is that people are constantly looking to re-invent their image so that new products are less common and boring, and companies have an excuse to get people to updated the old stuff that worked perfectly fine.</p><p>Remember when Apple got rid of Aqua and moved to brushed metal?  Many clear, neatly colored buttons full of common objects were replaced with hard-edged gray symbols.  Like most changes in the computer industry, not just on the Macintosh, those changes were made for marketing reasons.</p><p>Sometimes, solutions to our problems can be found in 10-year-old products.</p><p>Of course, while looking back on world history can teach us much, we all know that old computers are obsolete!  We make sure they are free of lead because they are <em>meant</em> to rot in the trash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good GUIs have been around for a while .
The problem is that people are constantly looking to re-invent their image so that new products are less common and boring , and companies have an excuse to get people to updated the old stuff that worked perfectly fine.Remember when Apple got rid of Aqua and moved to brushed metal ?
Many clear , neatly colored buttons full of common objects were replaced with hard-edged gray symbols .
Like most changes in the computer industry , not just on the Macintosh , those changes were made for marketing reasons.Sometimes , solutions to our problems can be found in 10-year-old products.Of course , while looking back on world history can teach us much , we all know that old computers are obsolete !
We make sure they are free of lead because they are meant to rot in the trash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good GUIs have been around for a while.
The problem is that people are constantly looking to re-invent their image so that new products are less common and boring, and companies have an excuse to get people to updated the old stuff that worked perfectly fine.Remember when Apple got rid of Aqua and moved to brushed metal?
Many clear, neatly colored buttons full of common objects were replaced with hard-edged gray symbols.
Like most changes in the computer industry, not just on the Macintosh, those changes were made for marketing reasons.Sometimes, solutions to our problems can be found in 10-year-old products.Of course, while looking back on world history can teach us much, we all know that old computers are obsolete!
We make sure they are free of lead because they are meant to rot in the trash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859306</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1264175280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty, but ultimately not useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty , but ultimately not useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty, but ultimately not useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860330</id>
	<title>Re:Computer HUD</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1264180320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made a scanner icon by taking a photo of my scanner and removing the "background". I cut out the scanner itself and left everything else transparent.</p><p>It makes a really cool scanner icon. I use it for my scanner "work area".</p><p>Got something similar for my video camera and still camera.</p><p>Being able to set any old image file as an icon is very handy.</p><p>All of that makes a nice contrast to "generic" folders. The "emblems" in Gnome are handy too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a scanner icon by taking a photo of my scanner and removing the " background " .
I cut out the scanner itself and left everything else transparent.It makes a really cool scanner icon .
I use it for my scanner " work area " .Got something similar for my video camera and still camera.Being able to set any old image file as an icon is very handy.All of that makes a nice contrast to " generic " folders .
The " emblems " in Gnome are handy too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a scanner icon by taking a photo of my scanner and removing the "background".
I cut out the scanner itself and left everything else transparent.It makes a really cool scanner icon.
I use it for my scanner "work area".Got something similar for my video camera and still camera.Being able to set any old image file as an icon is very handy.All of that makes a nice contrast to "generic" folders.
The "emblems" in Gnome are handy too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861398</id>
	<title>Re:The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1264185420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps because you are not likely to mistake it for anything else.</p><p>This is what a trademark is supposed to get you.</p><p>If it's too "intuitive" then it's probably not really a good trademark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because you are not likely to mistake it for anything else.This is what a trademark is supposed to get you.If it 's too " intuitive " then it 's probably not really a good trademark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because you are not likely to mistake it for anything else.This is what a trademark is supposed to get you.If it's too "intuitive" then it's probably not really a good trademark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860948</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264183320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. phrase one time was</p><p>"the nipple is intuitive all else is learned"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
phrase one time was " the nipple is intuitive all else is learned "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
phrase one time was"the nipple is intuitive all else is learned"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859140</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>nkh</author>
	<datestamp>1264174440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The game Lemmings had something like the footprints you describe to pause the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The game Lemmings had something like the footprints you describe to pause the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game Lemmings had something like the footprints you describe to pause the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859800</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>ewieling</author>
	<datestamp>1264177740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is less confusing, a little icon that looks sort of like a toaster, or a button that says "PRINT"?  Obviously the little icon that sort of looks like a toaster or they would not have removed words from the buttons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is less confusing , a little icon that looks sort of like a toaster , or a button that says " PRINT " ?
Obviously the little icon that sort of looks like a toaster or they would not have removed words from the buttons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is less confusing, a little icon that looks sort of like a toaster, or a button that says "PRINT"?
Obviously the little icon that sort of looks like a toaster or they would not have removed words from the buttons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860072</id>
	<title>A word is worth a thousand pictures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264179060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such was the conclusion of the team that designed the original Mac (not OSX...the 1984 version.)</p><p>The icons do serve a purpose...once you've mastered the interface, you'll recognize the icons by sight without having to read the text. But for a naive user, text is a must.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such was the conclusion of the team that designed the original Mac ( not OSX...the 1984 version .
) The icons do serve a purpose...once you 've mastered the interface , you 'll recognize the icons by sight without having to read the text .
But for a naive user , text is a must .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such was the conclusion of the team that designed the original Mac (not OSX...the 1984 version.
)The icons do serve a purpose...once you've mastered the interface, you'll recognize the icons by sight without having to read the text.
But for a naive user, text is a must.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859154</id>
	<title>Re:Who else remembers the horror?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264174440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Early to the Mid 90's is when most computers were able to do at least 640x480x8bit  this was a big deal, before we were stuck on 320x200 resolution for 8bits (if you were lucky, I was a 320x200 2bits CGA) But in short this is when computers now able to show photo realistic pictures.  And many developers have long waited for the ability to make programs that look so much like the real thing, As the earlier systems required a lot of artistry to come up with a cartoonish icon at best. So it was really a large scale experiment on how realistic you can make your program... What happened over time was people realized that being to realistic wasn't helpful and overlaying a 3d Interface with 2d controls was counter productive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Early to the Mid 90 's is when most computers were able to do at least 640x480x8bit this was a big deal , before we were stuck on 320x200 resolution for 8bits ( if you were lucky , I was a 320x200 2bits CGA ) But in short this is when computers now able to show photo realistic pictures .
And many developers have long waited for the ability to make programs that look so much like the real thing , As the earlier systems required a lot of artistry to come up with a cartoonish icon at best .
So it was really a large scale experiment on how realistic you can make your program... What happened over time was people realized that being to realistic was n't helpful and overlaying a 3d Interface with 2d controls was counter productive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early to the Mid 90's is when most computers were able to do at least 640x480x8bit  this was a big deal, before we were stuck on 320x200 resolution for 8bits (if you were lucky, I was a 320x200 2bits CGA) But in short this is when computers now able to show photo realistic pictures.
And many developers have long waited for the ability to make programs that look so much like the real thing, As the earlier systems required a lot of artistry to come up with a cartoonish icon at best.
So it was really a large scale experiment on how realistic you can make your program... What happened over time was people realized that being to realistic wasn't helpful and overlaying a 3d Interface with 2d controls was counter productive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863002</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1264152120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Icons are a waste of time. Instead, choose a specific, short word.</p><p>This is coming from someone who:<br>
- drew since I was four, and was often called an "artist" in school<br>
- majored in Communication<br>
- makes web sites for a living</p><p>
But:<br>
- a short string of text effectively is a picture --- several studies have shown that readers just look at the shapes of words. For example, aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas.<br>
<br>
- Google doesn't use icons. And we know that Google makes most of its design decisions not from some personal taste but usability tests. The only place it uses icons is in that "Even More" list of all its services. Even then, beside the icon is a word. And I wonder if the icons aren't there just to add some visual interest to an otherwise dry-looking page. They certainly do not tell you everything you need to know about an application. That's why there are names and notes beside each one.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Icons are a waste of time .
Instead , choose a specific , short word.This is coming from someone who : - drew since I was four , and was often called an " artist " in school - majored in Communication - makes web sites for a living But : - a short string of text effectively is a picture --- several studies have shown that readers just look at the shapes of words .
For example , aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy , it deos n't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are , olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas .
- Google does n't use icons .
And we know that Google makes most of its design decisions not from some personal taste but usability tests .
The only place it uses icons is in that " Even More " list of all its services .
Even then , beside the icon is a word .
And I wonder if the icons are n't there just to add some visual interest to an otherwise dry-looking page .
They certainly do not tell you everything you need to know about an application .
That 's why there are names and notes beside each one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Icons are a waste of time.
Instead, choose a specific, short word.This is coming from someone who:
- drew since I was four, and was often called an "artist" in school
- majored in Communication
- makes web sites for a living
But:
- a short string of text effectively is a picture --- several studies have shown that readers just look at the shapes of words.
For example, aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas.
- Google doesn't use icons.
And we know that Google makes most of its design decisions not from some personal taste but usability tests.
The only place it uses icons is in that "Even More" list of all its services.
Even then, beside the icon is a word.
And I wonder if the icons aren't there just to add some visual interest to an otherwise dry-looking page.
They certainly do not tell you everything you need to know about an application.
That's why there are names and notes beside each one.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861514</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1264186140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These are great examples, but if they're your best shot at arguing that interfaces can be "intuitive" then we can all go home now.
<br> <br>
Instead you've made an excellent case that usability is correlated with <i>social convention</i> and not with intuition at all.  Clearly the labels "Reply", "Cancel", and "Options" are <i>not</i> intuitive.  They're just apparently random arrangements of line segments.  Specific cultural knowledge is required in order to make sense of them.  That's not intuitive but conventional.
<br> <br>
Likewise, the symbolism of color is not innate but socially cued.  For example, black signifies mourning in western cultures but the social convention in China uses white instead.  We don't always recognize the cultural particularity of these conventions because they're so ancient. Some, like your example of red and green, may have been assigned by association with the physical world, perhaps red with blood and green with vegetation.  So that's not to suggest that we don't have some imprecise visceral reaction to color as well, but it takes a really big leap to get from there to effective symbolism.  Symbolism requires social consensus consensus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are great examples , but if they 're your best shot at arguing that interfaces can be " intuitive " then we can all go home now .
Instead you 've made an excellent case that usability is correlated with social convention and not with intuition at all .
Clearly the labels " Reply " , " Cancel " , and " Options " are not intuitive .
They 're just apparently random arrangements of line segments .
Specific cultural knowledge is required in order to make sense of them .
That 's not intuitive but conventional .
Likewise , the symbolism of color is not innate but socially cued .
For example , black signifies mourning in western cultures but the social convention in China uses white instead .
We do n't always recognize the cultural particularity of these conventions because they 're so ancient .
Some , like your example of red and green , may have been assigned by association with the physical world , perhaps red with blood and green with vegetation .
So that 's not to suggest that we do n't have some imprecise visceral reaction to color as well , but it takes a really big leap to get from there to effective symbolism .
Symbolism requires social consensus consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are great examples, but if they're your best shot at arguing that interfaces can be "intuitive" then we can all go home now.
Instead you've made an excellent case that usability is correlated with social convention and not with intuition at all.
Clearly the labels "Reply", "Cancel", and "Options" are not intuitive.
They're just apparently random arrangements of line segments.
Specific cultural knowledge is required in order to make sense of them.
That's not intuitive but conventional.
Likewise, the symbolism of color is not innate but socially cued.
For example, black signifies mourning in western cultures but the social convention in China uses white instead.
We don't always recognize the cultural particularity of these conventions because they're so ancient.
Some, like your example of red and green, may have been assigned by association with the physical world, perhaps red with blood and green with vegetation.
So that's not to suggest that we don't have some imprecise visceral reaction to color as well, but it takes a really big leap to get from there to effective symbolism.
Symbolism requires social consensus consensus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860396</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1264180620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How did we end up with a "house" as an icon for your personal files* or a "cog" as a symbol for additional commands in the first place?</p><p>A house icon is the graphical representation of a Unix-ism: $HOME or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/$USER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How did we end up with a " house " as an icon for your personal files * or a " cog " as a symbol for additional commands in the first place ? A house icon is the graphical representation of a Unix-ism : $ HOME or /home/ $ USER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How did we end up with a "house" as an icon for your personal files* or a "cog" as a symbol for additional commands in the first place?A house icon is the graphical representation of a Unix-ism: $HOME or /home/$USER.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858886</id>
	<title>Redundancytition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He repeats himself a lot of times by saying the same things over and over. It's like he could have said all he said in one sentence. The article didn't contain a lot of information, it was mostly the same sentence in different words. I think the article was very repetitive, even though it was an original thought to me. The article makes good work of giving a lot of good examples of this concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He repeats himself a lot of times by saying the same things over and over .
It 's like he could have said all he said in one sentence .
The article did n't contain a lot of information , it was mostly the same sentence in different words .
I think the article was very repetitive , even though it was an original thought to me .
The article makes good work of giving a lot of good examples of this concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He repeats himself a lot of times by saying the same things over and over.
It's like he could have said all he said in one sentence.
The article didn't contain a lot of information, it was mostly the same sentence in different words.
I think the article was very repetitive, even though it was an original thought to me.
The article makes good work of giving a lot of good examples of this concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</id>
	<title>It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1264172040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're looking for a generic UI than I suppose easy to recognize generic symbols are the best. However, my dream is to make the UIs that actually mimic reality but the trick is keeping them fairly usuable still.  I don't want it to be cartoonish, I want you to look at the UI and mistake it for a fantastic physical machine rather than a monitor.  For example, if you look at the themes on the <a href="http://exchange.enlightenment.org/theme" title="enlightenment.org">exchange</a> [enlightenment.org] site for e17, a lot of these not what you'd call an every day sort of theme but appeal to a particular aesthetic.  Examples include <a href="http://exchange.enlightenment.org/theme/show/884" title="enlightenment.org">steampunk</a> [enlightenment.org], <a href="http://exchange.enlightenment.org/theme/show/154" title="enlightenment.org">grunge</a> [enlightenment.org], and <a href="http://exchange.enlightenment.org/theme/show/574" title="enlightenment.org">baroque</a> [enlightenment.org] that incorporate photo realistic elements with varying efficacy (e.g. baroque is a cool concept but very hard on the eyes).  The idea is to make the living-room computer more than just a tool, but a functional piece of art.  <br> <br>What I'd love to do is make a theme that looks like the 1960s version of futuristic computers and space ship aesthetic from the movie 2001, with light-bulb lit buttons of different colored plastic, lots of milled metal highlights and dark plastic everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're looking for a generic UI than I suppose easy to recognize generic symbols are the best .
However , my dream is to make the UIs that actually mimic reality but the trick is keeping them fairly usuable still .
I do n't want it to be cartoonish , I want you to look at the UI and mistake it for a fantastic physical machine rather than a monitor .
For example , if you look at the themes on the exchange [ enlightenment.org ] site for e17 , a lot of these not what you 'd call an every day sort of theme but appeal to a particular aesthetic .
Examples include steampunk [ enlightenment.org ] , grunge [ enlightenment.org ] , and baroque [ enlightenment.org ] that incorporate photo realistic elements with varying efficacy ( e.g .
baroque is a cool concept but very hard on the eyes ) .
The idea is to make the living-room computer more than just a tool , but a functional piece of art .
What I 'd love to do is make a theme that looks like the 1960s version of futuristic computers and space ship aesthetic from the movie 2001 , with light-bulb lit buttons of different colored plastic , lots of milled metal highlights and dark plastic everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're looking for a generic UI than I suppose easy to recognize generic symbols are the best.
However, my dream is to make the UIs that actually mimic reality but the trick is keeping them fairly usuable still.
I don't want it to be cartoonish, I want you to look at the UI and mistake it for a fantastic physical machine rather than a monitor.
For example, if you look at the themes on the exchange [enlightenment.org] site for e17, a lot of these not what you'd call an every day sort of theme but appeal to a particular aesthetic.
Examples include steampunk [enlightenment.org], grunge [enlightenment.org], and baroque [enlightenment.org] that incorporate photo realistic elements with varying efficacy (e.g.
baroque is a cool concept but very hard on the eyes).
The idea is to make the living-room computer more than just a tool, but a functional piece of art.
What I'd love to do is make a theme that looks like the 1960s version of futuristic computers and space ship aesthetic from the movie 2001, with light-bulb lit buttons of different colored plastic, lots of milled metal highlights and dark plastic everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860428</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264180800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>USE WORDS!</p></div><p>In how many languages? At least a home-plate-shaped pentagon with windows and a door on it means "home" throughout the developed world.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day.</p></div><p>Guess what developers wish of their own applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>USE WORDS ! In how many languages ?
At least a home-plate-shaped pentagon with windows and a door on it means " home " throughout the developed world.The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you 're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day.Guess what developers wish of their own applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USE WORDS!In how many languages?
At least a home-plate-shaped pentagon with windows and a door on it means "home" throughout the developed world.The only time you should use graphics for controls is when you're designing something your users will use frequently throughout the day every day.Guess what developers wish of their own applications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860526</id>
	<title>Re:The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264181160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People close to the VLC project, at l'Ecole Centrale Paris <a href="http://www.nanocrew.net/2005/06/23/vlc-cone/" title="nanocrew.net">collected traffic cones</a> [nanocrew.net]. Why? You might ask why Bertie Wooster  collected policeman's helmets. If you want to make it sound less silly, you could probably argue that the videolan client manages the traffic of numerous media streams, but it's a strain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People close to the VLC project , at l'Ecole Centrale Paris collected traffic cones [ nanocrew.net ] .
Why ? You might ask why Bertie Wooster collected policeman 's helmets .
If you want to make it sound less silly , you could probably argue that the videolan client manages the traffic of numerous media streams , but it 's a strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People close to the VLC project, at l'Ecole Centrale Paris collected traffic cones [nanocrew.net].
Why? You might ask why Bertie Wooster  collected policeman's helmets.
If you want to make it sound less silly, you could probably argue that the videolan client manages the traffic of numerous media streams, but it's a strain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859426</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>otravi</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still wonder what that icon does. It doesn't even have a tooltip and clicking it seems to do nothing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:V.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still wonder what that icon does .
It does n't even have a tooltip and clicking it seems to do nothing : V .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still wonder what that icon does.
It doesn't even have a tooltip and clicking it seems to do nothing :V.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861020</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264183620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics, and Apple has theirs, and Adobe has theirs, and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience, but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.</i></p><p><i>The issue is, why should the user need to learn a new language for each application?</i></p><p>Because, as you mention they can get sued. Anyone can trademark and copyright even a 16*16 monochrome bitmap icon. It is absurd that this can be true. There are words in the English language that need more bits than that just to spell correctly! Yet these icons have become part of our language. As a result software developers are scared to use existing icons because they might get sued. This is one reason why photographic quality icons have become more popular (in addition to computer graphics improving over the years), it is easier to prove a photographic image is unique.</p><p>I have seen people blatantly copy icons out of Windows and Mac for various projects because these symbols are what they are used to, and a slightly different icon may not mean the same thing. But it puts them at legal risk and then, sadly, others wind up having to make a big deal about replacing these icons with something different and possibly less recognizable to the users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics , and Apple has theirs , and Adobe has theirs , and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience , but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.The issue is , why should the user need to learn a new language for each application ? Because , as you mention they can get sued .
Anyone can trademark and copyright even a 16 * 16 monochrome bitmap icon .
It is absurd that this can be true .
There are words in the English language that need more bits than that just to spell correctly !
Yet these icons have become part of our language .
As a result software developers are scared to use existing icons because they might get sued .
This is one reason why photographic quality icons have become more popular ( in addition to computer graphics improving over the years ) , it is easier to prove a photographic image is unique.I have seen people blatantly copy icons out of Windows and Mac for various projects because these symbols are what they are used to , and a slightly different icon may not mean the same thing .
But it puts them at legal risk and then , sadly , others wind up having to make a big deal about replacing these icons with something different and possibly less recognizable to the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics, and Apple has theirs, and Adobe has theirs, and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience, but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.The issue is, why should the user need to learn a new language for each application?Because, as you mention they can get sued.
Anyone can trademark and copyright even a 16*16 monochrome bitmap icon.
It is absurd that this can be true.
There are words in the English language that need more bits than that just to spell correctly!
Yet these icons have become part of our language.
As a result software developers are scared to use existing icons because they might get sued.
This is one reason why photographic quality icons have become more popular (in addition to computer graphics improving over the years), it is easier to prove a photographic image is unique.I have seen people blatantly copy icons out of Windows and Mac for various projects because these symbols are what they are used to, and a slightly different icon may not mean the same thing.
But it puts them at legal risk and then, sadly, others wind up having to make a big deal about replacing these icons with something different and possibly less recognizable to the users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859760</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Foolicious</author>
	<datestamp>1264177620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of intuitiveness is recognizability.  You may disagree, but the fact that you almost certainly understood my last sentence even though "recognizability" is not actually part of the existing English language, lends at least a little bit of credence the other way.  If you want to talk about building interfaces off of already recognizable "standards" that makes good sense, but if you want to compare UI elements to elements in a language, then part of the fun is that the dictionary is always growing.  Your idea also doesn't take into account that parts of Apple's or Microsoft or whomever's UI suck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of intuitiveness is recognizability .
You may disagree , but the fact that you almost certainly understood my last sentence even though " recognizability " is not actually part of the existing English language , lends at least a little bit of credence the other way .
If you want to talk about building interfaces off of already recognizable " standards " that makes good sense , but if you want to compare UI elements to elements in a language , then part of the fun is that the dictionary is always growing .
Your idea also does n't take into account that parts of Apple 's or Microsoft or whomever 's UI suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of intuitiveness is recognizability.
You may disagree, but the fact that you almost certainly understood my last sentence even though "recognizability" is not actually part of the existing English language, lends at least a little bit of credence the other way.
If you want to talk about building interfaces off of already recognizable "standards" that makes good sense, but if you want to compare UI elements to elements in a language, then part of the fun is that the dictionary is always growing.
Your idea also doesn't take into account that parts of Apple's or Microsoft or whomever's UI suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860486</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264180980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll start with a Google search for "Asperger's Syndrome".  I'm not being funny or mean, just saying that icon abstraction is a weakness for them.</p><p>Since a LOT of software developers display varying degrees of Asperberger's, it is no wonder that the UIs in software are often lost on the common user. This is also why there are Human Factors Engineers and Software Developers...very few people can do both well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start with a Google search for " Asperger 's Syndrome " .
I 'm not being funny or mean , just saying that icon abstraction is a weakness for them.Since a LOT of software developers display varying degrees of Asperberger 's , it is no wonder that the UIs in software are often lost on the common user .
This is also why there are Human Factors Engineers and Software Developers...very few people can do both well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start with a Google search for "Asperger's Syndrome".
I'm not being funny or mean, just saying that icon abstraction is a weakness for them.Since a LOT of software developers display varying degrees of Asperberger's, it is no wonder that the UIs in software are often lost on the common user.
This is also why there are Human Factors Engineers and Software Developers...very few people can do both well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Foolicious</author>
	<datestamp>1264176360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>many people are too timid to press anything they don't already understand</p></div><p>Given my experience in IT in corporate America, I would say that this is not only not the case, but REALLY not the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>many people are too timid to press anything they do n't already understandGiven my experience in IT in corporate America , I would say that this is not only not the case , but REALLY not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many people are too timid to press anything they don't already understandGiven my experience in IT in corporate America, I would say that this is not only not the case, but REALLY not the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859638</id>
	<title>Re:many words</title>
	<author>blau</author>
	<datestamp>1264176960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And at the end of it I still don't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count "just abstract enough" as an answer!</p></div></blockquote><p>

I guess if it was possible to say "This is the perfect icon! All icons have to be like this!" it would already have been done and there wouldn't be so many bad UIs around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And at the end of it I still do n't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count " just abstract enough " as an answer !
I guess if it was possible to say " This is the perfect icon !
All icons have to be like this !
" it would already have been done and there would n't be so many bad UIs around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at the end of it I still don't know how abstract a picture should be - unless you count "just abstract enough" as an answer!
I guess if it was possible to say "This is the perfect icon!
All icons have to be like this!
" it would already have been done and there wouldn't be so many bad UIs around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858664</id>
	<title>FIRST POST!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264171140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FIRST POST!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FIRST POST !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FIRST POST!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859538</id>
	<title>Opposite Feeling</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1264176480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used software with that photo-realistic, it's a fantastic machine UI that you are a fan of and I did not like it one bit.  My problem with making fancy physical looking machines on a monitor is the fact I still can't interact with it very well. It's just a flat image that I can only manipulate with a handful of mouse gestures.  "Can I click this?  Do I drag that?  I did not know that lever moved!" It basically hides a bunch of functionality in plain view and really confuses the heck out of me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used software with that photo-realistic , it 's a fantastic machine UI that you are a fan of and I did not like it one bit .
My problem with making fancy physical looking machines on a monitor is the fact I still ca n't interact with it very well .
It 's just a flat image that I can only manipulate with a handful of mouse gestures .
" Can I click this ?
Do I drag that ?
I did not know that lever moved !
" It basically hides a bunch of functionality in plain view and really confuses the heck out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used software with that photo-realistic, it's a fantastic machine UI that you are a fan of and I did not like it one bit.
My problem with making fancy physical looking machines on a monitor is the fact I still can't interact with it very well.
It's just a flat image that I can only manipulate with a handful of mouse gestures.
"Can I click this?
Do I drag that?
I did not know that lever moved!
" It basically hides a bunch of functionality in plain view and really confuses the heck out of me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</id>
	<title>Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1264171260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just yesterday, I was commenting on twitter about how the new icon sets for youtube videos are rather confusing.  It took a bit of staring to figure out what <a href="http://suso.suso.org/mediafiles/newyoutubeexpandicons.png" title="suso.org">these icons</a> [suso.org] do.  Nobody was able to guess the right answer. C\_64 had the funniest answer though by saying "You can only go 8 bits forward or 8 bits to the left ?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just yesterday , I was commenting on twitter about how the new icon sets for youtube videos are rather confusing .
It took a bit of staring to figure out what these icons [ suso.org ] do .
Nobody was able to guess the right answer .
C \ _64 had the funniest answer though by saying " You can only go 8 bits forward or 8 bits to the left ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just yesterday, I was commenting on twitter about how the new icon sets for youtube videos are rather confusing.
It took a bit of staring to figure out what these icons [suso.org] do.
Nobody was able to guess the right answer.
C\_64 had the funniest answer though by saying "You can only go 8 bits forward or 8 bits to the left ?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859126</id>
	<title>Re:Computer HUD</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1264174380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Search the internet for Microsoft Bob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search the internet for Microsoft Bob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search the internet for Microsoft Bob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860716</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1264182180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My experience is that people will click with wild abandon when they shouldn't, and be deathly afraid to do anything when there's no real harm involved.  <br>
<br>
These are the people who will install anything they damn well please, change important settings for absolutely no reason "because it seemed like a good idea", set passwords on things that don't need passwords and then forget them, forward phone A to phone B and phone B to phone A because "I wanted them both to ring if I got a call," and other general nonsense.  They have no problem screwing around to their heart's content and breaking everything and never learning. <br>
<br>
That same person will also submit endless tickets or place endless helpdesk calls because they were afraid to change a trivial setting that involves a single, labelled checkbox, because "I wasn't sure if that would mess anything up."</htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience is that people will click with wild abandon when they should n't , and be deathly afraid to do anything when there 's no real harm involved .
These are the people who will install anything they damn well please , change important settings for absolutely no reason " because it seemed like a good idea " , set passwords on things that do n't need passwords and then forget them , forward phone A to phone B and phone B to phone A because " I wanted them both to ring if I got a call , " and other general nonsense .
They have no problem screwing around to their heart 's content and breaking everything and never learning .
That same person will also submit endless tickets or place endless helpdesk calls because they were afraid to change a trivial setting that involves a single , labelled checkbox , because " I was n't sure if that would mess anything up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience is that people will click with wild abandon when they shouldn't, and be deathly afraid to do anything when there's no real harm involved.
These are the people who will install anything they damn well please, change important settings for absolutely no reason "because it seemed like a good idea", set passwords on things that don't need passwords and then forget them, forward phone A to phone B and phone B to phone A because "I wanted them both to ring if I got a call," and other general nonsense.
They have no problem screwing around to their heart's content and breaking everything and never learning.
That same person will also submit endless tickets or place endless helpdesk calls because they were afraid to change a trivial setting that involves a single, labelled checkbox, because "I wasn't sure if that would mess anything up.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864858</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>@ everyone bitching about icons..<br><br>theres a reason why IQ tests are graphical patterns, if you have problems with parsing icononographic conventions is not anybodies fault but you, either you have low IQ or you are simply graphically challenged or, yes, you are indeed old.<br><br>I used to think that command line interface was for smarter people but you opened my eyes, bearded unix geeks prefer CLI because they have problems parsing icons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>@ everyone bitching about icons..theres a reason why IQ tests are graphical patterns , if you have problems with parsing icononographic conventions is not anybodies fault but you , either you have low IQ or you are simply graphically challenged or , yes , you are indeed old.I used to think that command line interface was for smarter people but you opened my eyes , bearded unix geeks prefer CLI because they have problems parsing icons : o lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@ everyone bitching about icons..theres a reason why IQ tests are graphical patterns, if you have problems with parsing icononographic conventions is not anybodies fault but you, either you have low IQ or you are simply graphically challenged or, yes, you are indeed old.I used to think that command line interface was for smarter people but you opened my eyes, bearded unix geeks prefer CLI because they have problems parsing icons :o lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858818</id>
	<title>Data source Visual Studio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264172580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about confusing! When I first saw that sparkling gold bar on Visual Studio, I thought it was a payment option to Microsoft to buy more features for the IED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about confusing !
When I first saw that sparkling gold bar on Visual Studio , I thought it was a payment option to Microsoft to buy more features for the IED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about confusing!
When I first saw that sparkling gold bar on Visual Studio, I thought it was a payment option to Microsoft to buy more features for the IED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860892</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1264183020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a few American cars that take this to the far opposite extreme, where almost every button has a textual label.  In the scope of a modern automobile, this appears quite clunky, and far too busy.  (I also blame GM for frequently using different icons than their competitors)</p><p>Personally, I'm quite fond of my car's control layout (a 1999 Audi A4).  Text is used sparingly, but judiciously, there are only as many controls as there needs to be, and all of the important controls (ie. everything but a few of the radio controls) can be operated with gloves on.  Not much thought is given to automotive UI design, which is really a shame, especially in the context of some of the <i>awful</i> control schemes that are beginning to appear on new cars.</p><p>Audi also used a few clever tricks to cut down on internationalization costs -- most of the textual labels that they do use make sense in several languages (ie. 'AUTO' is a valid abbreviation for automatic in almost every western language).</p><p>Of course, the argument that car manufacturers make extensive use of icons to save money on internationalization costs doesn't hold much water.  Very few cars sold in North America are identical (or even close to identical) to their Asian and European counterparts.  The cost of screenprinting a few extra buttons is inconsequential compared to the costs of building different engines and emission-control devices to conform to North American standards.  I know that VW/Audi in particular use slightly different body stylings and different headlights and indicators between their European and North American models -- almost nothing is identical (or even compatible).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a few American cars that take this to the far opposite extreme , where almost every button has a textual label .
In the scope of a modern automobile , this appears quite clunky , and far too busy .
( I also blame GM for frequently using different icons than their competitors ) Personally , I 'm quite fond of my car 's control layout ( a 1999 Audi A4 ) .
Text is used sparingly , but judiciously , there are only as many controls as there needs to be , and all of the important controls ( ie .
everything but a few of the radio controls ) can be operated with gloves on .
Not much thought is given to automotive UI design , which is really a shame , especially in the context of some of the awful control schemes that are beginning to appear on new cars.Audi also used a few clever tricks to cut down on internationalization costs -- most of the textual labels that they do use make sense in several languages ( ie .
'AUTO ' is a valid abbreviation for automatic in almost every western language ) .Of course , the argument that car manufacturers make extensive use of icons to save money on internationalization costs does n't hold much water .
Very few cars sold in North America are identical ( or even close to identical ) to their Asian and European counterparts .
The cost of screenprinting a few extra buttons is inconsequential compared to the costs of building different engines and emission-control devices to conform to North American standards .
I know that VW/Audi in particular use slightly different body stylings and different headlights and indicators between their European and North American models -- almost nothing is identical ( or even compatible ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a few American cars that take this to the far opposite extreme, where almost every button has a textual label.
In the scope of a modern automobile, this appears quite clunky, and far too busy.
(I also blame GM for frequently using different icons than their competitors)Personally, I'm quite fond of my car's control layout (a 1999 Audi A4).
Text is used sparingly, but judiciously, there are only as many controls as there needs to be, and all of the important controls (ie.
everything but a few of the radio controls) can be operated with gloves on.
Not much thought is given to automotive UI design, which is really a shame, especially in the context of some of the awful control schemes that are beginning to appear on new cars.Audi also used a few clever tricks to cut down on internationalization costs -- most of the textual labels that they do use make sense in several languages (ie.
'AUTO' is a valid abbreviation for automatic in almost every western language).Of course, the argument that car manufacturers make extensive use of icons to save money on internationalization costs doesn't hold much water.
Very few cars sold in North America are identical (or even close to identical) to their Asian and European counterparts.
The cost of screenprinting a few extra buttons is inconsequential compared to the costs of building different engines and emission-control devices to conform to North American standards.
I know that VW/Audi in particular use slightly different body stylings and different headlights and indicators between their European and North American models -- almost nothing is identical (or even compatible).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859430</id>
	<title>Title should be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For OS X, just the right degree of realism."</p><p>This smacks of yet another Macboy ogling the interface, finding points to preach about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For OS X , just the right degree of realism .
" This smacks of yet another Macboy ogling the interface , finding points to preach about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For OS X, just the right degree of realism.
"This smacks of yet another Macboy ogling the interface, finding points to preach about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30887428</id>
	<title>The Inmates Are Running the Asylum</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1264412580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This book says it all.</p><p>"The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity<br>By Alan Cooper, Foreword by Paul Saffo</p><p>The Inmates Are Running the Asylum argues that, despite appearances, business executives are simply not the ones in control of the high-tech industry. They have inadvertently put programmers and engineers in charge, leading to products and processes that waste huge amounts of money, squander customer loyalty, and erode competitive advantage. They have let the inmates run the asylum. Alan Cooper offers a provocative, insightful, and entertaining explanation of how talented people repeatedly design bad software-based products. More importantly, he uses his own work with companies big and small to show how to create products that will both thrill users and improve the bottom line.</p><p>Reviews</p><p>"Frightening but true. Personal computers have engendered another New Age codependency. They shame us, they frustrate us and yet we keep spending money on them. Alan Cooper's book explains why it shouldn't be so and what we can do about it. A humbling and enjoyable read."<br>--Jean-Louis Gass&#233;e, Founder, Be, Inc. and Apple Computer France</p><p>"Once again, Alan Cooper shows the way. His books should be required reading for all those technology companies who think they are serving their customers: think again. We need more books like this one, and more people like Alan Cooper."<br>--Don Norman, Nielsen Norman Group, author of The Invisible Computer</p><p>"This clear-headed book teaches leaders what they need to know to create systems that win in the marketplace... you will find this one of the most thoughtful, practical, and helpful books you can read."<br>--Larry Keeley, President, Doblin Group</p><p><a href="http://www.cooper.com/insights/books/" title="cooper.com">http://www.cooper.com/insights/books/</a> [cooper.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This book says it all .
" The Inmates Are Running the Asylum : Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the SanityBy Alan Cooper , Foreword by Paul SaffoThe Inmates Are Running the Asylum argues that , despite appearances , business executives are simply not the ones in control of the high-tech industry .
They have inadvertently put programmers and engineers in charge , leading to products and processes that waste huge amounts of money , squander customer loyalty , and erode competitive advantage .
They have let the inmates run the asylum .
Alan Cooper offers a provocative , insightful , and entertaining explanation of how talented people repeatedly design bad software-based products .
More importantly , he uses his own work with companies big and small to show how to create products that will both thrill users and improve the bottom line.Reviews " Frightening but true .
Personal computers have engendered another New Age codependency .
They shame us , they frustrate us and yet we keep spending money on them .
Alan Cooper 's book explains why it should n't be so and what we can do about it .
A humbling and enjoyable read .
" --Jean-Louis Gass   e , Founder , Be , Inc. and Apple Computer France " Once again , Alan Cooper shows the way .
His books should be required reading for all those technology companies who think they are serving their customers : think again .
We need more books like this one , and more people like Alan Cooper .
" --Don Norman , Nielsen Norman Group , author of The Invisible Computer " This clear-headed book teaches leaders what they need to know to create systems that win in the marketplace... you will find this one of the most thoughtful , practical , and helpful books you can read .
" --Larry Keeley , President , Doblin Grouphttp : //www.cooper.com/insights/books/ [ cooper.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This book says it all.
"The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the SanityBy Alan Cooper, Foreword by Paul SaffoThe Inmates Are Running the Asylum argues that, despite appearances, business executives are simply not the ones in control of the high-tech industry.
They have inadvertently put programmers and engineers in charge, leading to products and processes that waste huge amounts of money, squander customer loyalty, and erode competitive advantage.
They have let the inmates run the asylum.
Alan Cooper offers a provocative, insightful, and entertaining explanation of how talented people repeatedly design bad software-based products.
More importantly, he uses his own work with companies big and small to show how to create products that will both thrill users and improve the bottom line.Reviews"Frightening but true.
Personal computers have engendered another New Age codependency.
They shame us, they frustrate us and yet we keep spending money on them.
Alan Cooper's book explains why it shouldn't be so and what we can do about it.
A humbling and enjoyable read.
"--Jean-Louis Gassée, Founder, Be, Inc. and Apple Computer France"Once again, Alan Cooper shows the way.
His books should be required reading for all those technology companies who think they are serving their customers: think again.
We need more books like this one, and more people like Alan Cooper.
"--Don Norman, Nielsen Norman Group, author of The Invisible Computer"This clear-headed book teaches leaders what they need to know to create systems that win in the marketplace... you will find this one of the most thoughtful, practical, and helpful books you can read.
"--Larry Keeley, President, Doblin Grouphttp://www.cooper.com/insights/books/ [cooper.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860354</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't push things I don't understand.  That's how people get viruses when human interaction is required, or delete data accidentally.</p><p>Your suggestion is basically when you think there's something available, click things that look like they might work, when you have no idea what they will do.</p><p>Here's an example from Vista, just because it's fresh in my mind.  I click a zip file and IE asks me what to do - save or open.  I always want to save, so I click "Don't ask" checkbox and "Save".  Next time, instead of saving it opens the zip. The only way to change that is to find something in the registry - you can't just go into folder options like in XP and all previous windows, and there is no "Confirm open after download" or whatever it is.  I clicked something because I thought it was what I wanted to do, and it turned into an internet search and careful registry tweak to undo.</p><p>You're suggesting doing the same thing, only with a picture which could very well be misleading at best.  Trusting that a random script hasn't altered the DOM to put that there so you'd download something nasty.  Or a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll injection creating a window which isn't enabled until you are fully authorized, then kicks off severely malicious code.</p><p>I know, I'm being a bit ridiculous.  But clicking on things you don't understand is terrible advice no matter the circumstance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't push things I do n't understand .
That 's how people get viruses when human interaction is required , or delete data accidentally.Your suggestion is basically when you think there 's something available , click things that look like they might work , when you have no idea what they will do.Here 's an example from Vista , just because it 's fresh in my mind .
I click a zip file and IE asks me what to do - save or open .
I always want to save , so I click " Do n't ask " checkbox and " Save " .
Next time , instead of saving it opens the zip .
The only way to change that is to find something in the registry - you ca n't just go into folder options like in XP and all previous windows , and there is no " Confirm open after download " or whatever it is .
I clicked something because I thought it was what I wanted to do , and it turned into an internet search and careful registry tweak to undo.You 're suggesting doing the same thing , only with a picture which could very well be misleading at best .
Trusting that a random script has n't altered the DOM to put that there so you 'd download something nasty .
Or a .dll injection creating a window which is n't enabled until you are fully authorized , then kicks off severely malicious code.I know , I 'm being a bit ridiculous .
But clicking on things you do n't understand is terrible advice no matter the circumstance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't push things I don't understand.
That's how people get viruses when human interaction is required, or delete data accidentally.Your suggestion is basically when you think there's something available, click things that look like they might work, when you have no idea what they will do.Here's an example from Vista, just because it's fresh in my mind.
I click a zip file and IE asks me what to do - save or open.
I always want to save, so I click "Don't ask" checkbox and "Save".
Next time, instead of saving it opens the zip.
The only way to change that is to find something in the registry - you can't just go into folder options like in XP and all previous windows, and there is no "Confirm open after download" or whatever it is.
I clicked something because I thought it was what I wanted to do, and it turned into an internet search and careful registry tweak to undo.You're suggesting doing the same thing, only with a picture which could very well be misleading at best.
Trusting that a random script hasn't altered the DOM to put that there so you'd download something nasty.
Or a .dll injection creating a window which isn't enabled until you are fully authorized, then kicks off severely malicious code.I know, I'm being a bit ridiculous.
But clicking on things you don't understand is terrible advice no matter the circumstance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30871126</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1264275120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces. </p></div><p>I have to disagree, if you look at the interface of a Apple Newton, you can see how they can be intuitive. I agree most are not, and have 'tech' shoved down the users throats, but it CAN be done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as " intuitive " computer interfaces .
I have to disagree , if you look at the interface of a Apple Newton , you can see how they can be intuitive .
I agree most are not , and have 'tech ' shoved down the users throats , but it CAN be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.
I have to disagree, if you look at the interface of a Apple Newton, you can see how they can be intuitive.
I agree most are not, and have 'tech' shoved down the users throats, but it CAN be done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860394</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264180620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>every control in my car (and many others) is now identified by an icon instead of a label.</p></div><p>Would you rather have a label written in Hebrew?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>every control in my car ( and many others ) is now identified by an icon instead of a label.Would you rather have a label written in Hebrew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every control in my car (and many others) is now identified by an icon instead of a label.Would you rather have a label written in Hebrew?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30874044</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264253100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dont confuse conventional with intuitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dont confuse conventional with intuitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dont confuse conventional with intuitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859410</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1264175940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Tango project tried to stay multi-lingual and meaningful to as many people as possible by representing the action rather than playing word games. They did still have huge problems with ideas for some icons, though, as the concepts were just too vague. I tend to find the Tango icons quite sensible for meanings, but someone must have done some image processing and interpretation research on them.</p><p>I don't suppose you'll ever get perfect recognition, since most of the actions on a computer can be quite abstract anyway and so don't always have perfect mappings, but sometimes the image must be more understandable (especially in the space available) than what could be a few words or more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Tango project tried to stay multi-lingual and meaningful to as many people as possible by representing the action rather than playing word games .
They did still have huge problems with ideas for some icons , though , as the concepts were just too vague .
I tend to find the Tango icons quite sensible for meanings , but someone must have done some image processing and interpretation research on them.I do n't suppose you 'll ever get perfect recognition , since most of the actions on a computer can be quite abstract anyway and so do n't always have perfect mappings , but sometimes the image must be more understandable ( especially in the space available ) than what could be a few words or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Tango project tried to stay multi-lingual and meaningful to as many people as possible by representing the action rather than playing word games.
They did still have huge problems with ideas for some icons, though, as the concepts were just too vague.
I tend to find the Tango icons quite sensible for meanings, but someone must have done some image processing and interpretation research on them.I don't suppose you'll ever get perfect recognition, since most of the actions on a computer can be quite abstract anyway and so don't always have perfect mappings, but sometimes the image must be more understandable (especially in the space available) than what could be a few words or more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860748</id>
	<title>Re:The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1264182360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone??</p></div></blockquote><p><i>One day, people from the VIA association (VIA is a students&rsquo; network association with many clubs  amongst those is VideoLAN.) came back drunk with a cone. They then began a cone collection (which is now quite impressive I must say). Some time later, the VideoLAN project began and they decided to use the cone as their logo.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.nanocrew.net/2005/06/23/vlc-cone/" title="nanocrew.net">http://www.nanocrew.net/2005/06/23/vlc-cone/</a> [nanocrew.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone ?
? One day , people from the VIA association ( VIA is a students    network association with many clubs amongst those is VideoLAN .
) came back drunk with a cone .
They then began a cone collection ( which is now quite impressive I must say ) .
Some time later , the VideoLAN project began and they decided to use the cone as their logo.http : //www.nanocrew.net/2005/06/23/vlc-cone/ [ nanocrew.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone?
?One day, people from the VIA association (VIA is a students’ network association with many clubs  amongst those is VideoLAN.
) came back drunk with a cone.
They then began a cone collection (which is now quite impressive I must say).
Some time later, the VideoLAN project began and they decided to use the cone as their logo.http://www.nanocrew.net/2005/06/23/vlc-cone/ [nanocrew.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</id>
	<title>Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>mcmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264173480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this guy talks about realism, he's missing the point.  If we didn't have each software designer creating its own visual language, then we wouldn't have the issue of how well that language is designed.</p><p>When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics, and Apple has theirs, and Adobe has theirs, and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience, but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.</p><p>The issue is, why should the user need to learn a new language for each application?</p><p>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.  Fair enough.  But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one, doesn't it follow then no one can use your app?</p><p>Designers, pick an existing language used by your target market.  Is that real enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this guy talks about realism , he 's missing the point .
If we did n't have each software designer creating its own visual language , then we would n't have the issue of how well that language is designed.When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics , and Apple has theirs , and Adobe has theirs , and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience , but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.The issue is , why should the user need to learn a new language for each application ? You may say , well , if you put all your commands in English , then only English speakers can use your app .
Fair enough .
But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one , does n't it follow then no one can use your app ? Designers , pick an existing language used by your target market .
Is that real enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this guy talks about realism, he's missing the point.
If we didn't have each software designer creating its own visual language, then we wouldn't have the issue of how well that language is designed.When Microsoft has its own set of hieroglyphics, and Apple has theirs, and Adobe has theirs, and each OSS has its own language--which is similar to some existing commercial language to leverage user experience, but different enough to avoid getting sued--then the issue is not how well these languages are designed.The issue is, why should the user need to learn a new language for each application?You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.
Fair enough.
But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one, doesn't it follow then no one can use your app?Designers, pick an existing language used by your target market.
Is that real enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860994</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264183500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://insitu.lri.fr/metisse/" title="insitu.lri.fr">Mettise</a> [insitu.lri.fr] uses pie menus, though that's probably the least of its innovations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mettise [ insitu.lri.fr ] uses pie menus , though that 's probably the least of its innovations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mettise [insitu.lri.fr] uses pie menus, though that's probably the least of its innovations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861064</id>
	<title>Re:Abstract logos; internationalization</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264183800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would you rather have "f&#233;nysz&#243;r&#243;" or "Scheinwerfer" or "pr&#236;omh-sholas" than a stylized picture of a headlight?</p></div></blockquote><p>I can look up "Scheinwerfer" in a dictionary and figure out "light thrower" means "headlight".  It's rather harder to look up a "triangle with 3 lines" and get "headlight" instead of "ignite boost rockets".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather have " f   nysz   r   " or " Scheinwerfer " or " pr   omh-sholas " than a stylized picture of a headlight ? I can look up " Scheinwerfer " in a dictionary and figure out " light thrower " means " headlight " .
It 's rather harder to look up a " triangle with 3 lines " and get " headlight " instead of " ignite boost rockets " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather have "fényszóró" or "Scheinwerfer" or "prìomh-sholas" than a stylized picture of a headlight?I can look up "Scheinwerfer" in a dictionary and figure out "light thrower" means "headlight".
It's rather harder to look up a "triangle with 3 lines" and get "headlight" instead of "ignite boost rockets".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861610</id>
	<title>Re:Human language is real enough?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1264186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.  Fair enough.  But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one, doesn't it follow then no one can use your app?</p><p>Designers, pick an existing language used by your target market.  Is that real enough?</p></div><p>Good point; I think it would be nice if we did see an "existing" language used by all designers.  I think the industry has a lot of "common" or even "universal" icons that ARE an emergent "existing language" like what you're after.  Look at the UI for all the major browsers, and you'll see very similar icons in the toolbar.  IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. don't each have their own, mutually unintelligible symbol for &gt;.</p><p>But you're right that there's less universality than if the UI widget language were made an open library of widgets that anyone can use.  There's SOME of that provided by qt, gtk, Windows, etc., but still you have custom graphics needs for <em>your</em> application.  This is only natural, if you think about it.  I think one reason why some companies would want to do this is that it locks the user into <i>their</i> product.  If GUI widgets were universal, then I could switch from PageMaker to Quark to InDesign and not have to learn a new icon language every time.  Adobe and Quark want you to have a hard time switching to their competitor, so of course they're not going to go for sharing an open UI iconography.  Even if they're not being greedy competitors, there's still the issues of theming your widgets for branding purposes, and of course copyright issues  Who's going to build widgets and just release them into the public domain?  Who'd pay someone else royalties for the right to use their widget graphics when they can create their own using salaried designers doing royalty-free work-for-hire?.</p><p>Another reason is there is a perception that that if you have to stick to standard widgets, you can't innovate.  If we all used ANSI UI icons, then how would we convey a new innovative function for MyKillerApp when the idea for that function never existed before and thus can't be found in the ANSI UI widget library?</p><p>The other point to make here is that icons are <em>not</em> linguistic.  We have arrows, stop signs, houses, and other graphical buttons precisely <em>because</em> they are universal symbols that everyone should be able to figure out.  We don't need to localize them, and they take up less space and are more quickly readable than linguistic button labels.  So to say that someone needs to learn a "new language" to pick up a new app is not really correct.  The pencil tool icon for Paint and Photoshop look similar enough, even though they're not identical bitmaps that I can figure it out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may say , well , if you put all your commands in English , then only English speakers can use your app .
Fair enough .
But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one , does n't it follow then no one can use your app ? Designers , pick an existing language used by your target market .
Is that real enough ? Good point ; I think it would be nice if we did see an " existing " language used by all designers .
I think the industry has a lot of " common " or even " universal " icons that ARE an emergent " existing language " like what you 're after .
Look at the UI for all the major browsers , and you 'll see very similar icons in the toolbar .
IE , Firefox , Opera , etc .
do n't each have their own , mutually unintelligible symbol for &gt; .But you 're right that there 's less universality than if the UI widget language were made an open library of widgets that anyone can use .
There 's SOME of that provided by qt , gtk , Windows , etc. , but still you have custom graphics needs for your application .
This is only natural , if you think about it .
I think one reason why some companies would want to do this is that it locks the user into their product .
If GUI widgets were universal , then I could switch from PageMaker to Quark to InDesign and not have to learn a new icon language every time .
Adobe and Quark want you to have a hard time switching to their competitor , so of course they 're not going to go for sharing an open UI iconography .
Even if they 're not being greedy competitors , there 's still the issues of theming your widgets for branding purposes , and of course copyright issues Who 's going to build widgets and just release them into the public domain ?
Who 'd pay someone else royalties for the right to use their widget graphics when they can create their own using salaried designers doing royalty-free work-for-hire ? .Another reason is there is a perception that that if you have to stick to standard widgets , you ca n't innovate .
If we all used ANSI UI icons , then how would we convey a new innovative function for MyKillerApp when the idea for that function never existed before and thus ca n't be found in the ANSI UI widget library ? The other point to make here is that icons are not linguistic .
We have arrows , stop signs , houses , and other graphical buttons precisely because they are universal symbols that everyone should be able to figure out .
We do n't need to localize them , and they take up less space and are more quickly readable than linguistic button labels .
So to say that someone needs to learn a " new language " to pick up a new app is not really correct .
The pencil tool icon for Paint and Photoshop look similar enough , even though they 're not identical bitmaps that I can figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may say, well, if you put all your commands in English, then only English speakers can use your app.
Fair enough.
But if you put all your commands in some bespoke language spoken by no one, doesn't it follow then no one can use your app?Designers, pick an existing language used by your target market.
Is that real enough?Good point; I think it would be nice if we did see an "existing" language used by all designers.
I think the industry has a lot of "common" or even "universal" icons that ARE an emergent "existing language" like what you're after.
Look at the UI for all the major browsers, and you'll see very similar icons in the toolbar.
IE, Firefox, Opera, etc.
don't each have their own, mutually unintelligible symbol for &gt;.But you're right that there's less universality than if the UI widget language were made an open library of widgets that anyone can use.
There's SOME of that provided by qt, gtk, Windows, etc., but still you have custom graphics needs for your application.
This is only natural, if you think about it.
I think one reason why some companies would want to do this is that it locks the user into their product.
If GUI widgets were universal, then I could switch from PageMaker to Quark to InDesign and not have to learn a new icon language every time.
Adobe and Quark want you to have a hard time switching to their competitor, so of course they're not going to go for sharing an open UI iconography.
Even if they're not being greedy competitors, there's still the issues of theming your widgets for branding purposes, and of course copyright issues  Who's going to build widgets and just release them into the public domain?
Who'd pay someone else royalties for the right to use their widget graphics when they can create their own using salaried designers doing royalty-free work-for-hire?.Another reason is there is a perception that that if you have to stick to standard widgets, you can't innovate.
If we all used ANSI UI icons, then how would we convey a new innovative function for MyKillerApp when the idea for that function never existed before and thus can't be found in the ANSI UI widget library?The other point to make here is that icons are not linguistic.
We have arrows, stop signs, houses, and other graphical buttons precisely because they are universal symbols that everyone should be able to figure out.
We don't need to localize them, and they take up less space and are more quickly readable than linguistic button labels.
So to say that someone needs to learn a "new language" to pick up a new app is not really correct.
The pencil tool icon for Paint and Photoshop look similar enough, even though they're not identical bitmaps that I can figure it out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1264173420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.  Instead, you want your interfaces to be "discoverable" and to build on other trained discoveries in a consistent way.</p><p>From that example of the new YouTube buttons, I agree they're bizarre.  Pretty much any button that JUST shows an arrow is useless for discoverability.  Does the arrow mean 'move' or 'grow' or 'next' or some other action?  By "discover," we don't mean to literally experiment with invoking the button to see what it does-- many people are too timid to press anything they don't already understand.  Instead, discovery involves finding that there IS a button that PROBABLY does what you already intend to do.  For example, follow the mental conversation:  "this window is too small, I want to make it bigger, there's got to be a button around here somewhere for making it bigger, oh aha! that one looks like a dark box getting bigger, so let me try that, yep, that's better."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as " intuitive " computer interfaces .
Instead , you want your interfaces to be " discoverable " and to build on other trained discoveries in a consistent way.From that example of the new YouTube buttons , I agree they 're bizarre .
Pretty much any button that JUST shows an arrow is useless for discoverability .
Does the arrow mean 'move ' or 'grow ' or 'next ' or some other action ?
By " discover , " we do n't mean to literally experiment with invoking the button to see what it does-- many people are too timid to press anything they do n't already understand .
Instead , discovery involves finding that there IS a button that PROBABLY does what you already intend to do .
For example , follow the mental conversation : " this window is too small , I want to make it bigger , there 's got to be a button around here somewhere for making it bigger , oh aha !
that one looks like a dark box getting bigger , so let me try that , yep , that 's better .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.
Instead, you want your interfaces to be "discoverable" and to build on other trained discoveries in a consistent way.From that example of the new YouTube buttons, I agree they're bizarre.
Pretty much any button that JUST shows an arrow is useless for discoverability.
Does the arrow mean 'move' or 'grow' or 'next' or some other action?
By "discover," we don't mean to literally experiment with invoking the button to see what it does-- many people are too timid to press anything they don't already understand.
Instead, discovery involves finding that there IS a button that PROBABLY does what you already intend to do.
For example, follow the mental conversation:  "this window is too small, I want to make it bigger, there's got to be a button around here somewhere for making it bigger, oh aha!
that one looks like a dark box getting bigger, so let me try that, yep, that's better.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864604</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264160220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those icons obviously rotate the image 180 degrees. They depict the X/Y axes, and which direction the positive values go. So the first has X and Y increasing as you go to the lower-right, the second as you go to the upper-left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those icons obviously rotate the image 180 degrees .
They depict the X/Y axes , and which direction the positive values go .
So the first has X and Y increasing as you go to the lower-right , the second as you go to the upper-left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those icons obviously rotate the image 180 degrees.
They depict the X/Y axes, and which direction the positive values go.
So the first has X and Y increasing as you go to the lower-right, the second as you go to the upper-left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859522</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1264176360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never read a user interface design article or book that I found insightful.  Bickerydyke is right, this article completely glosses over the actual evolution of our current icons and how they changed people's expectations to what they are today.  Instead, he poses some contrived gradient scale of reality -&gt; cartoon and posits this as the only relevant factor.<br> <br>
Who writes these things?  All the "UI experts" I've seen seem to take their field in isolation of everything else, which completely defeats the purpose of UI planning.  The overall concept is pretty simple, you have to figure out a way to connect the abstract model of your software with something tangible for the user.  This requires deep understanding of what problem the software is trying to solve, and the user's prior experience and expectations.  You can't get around that by applying some magic formula to arrive at the "perfect" UI.  Take your one size fits all t-shirts and get the hell out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never read a user interface design article or book that I found insightful .
Bickerydyke is right , this article completely glosses over the actual evolution of our current icons and how they changed people 's expectations to what they are today .
Instead , he poses some contrived gradient scale of reality - &gt; cartoon and posits this as the only relevant factor .
Who writes these things ?
All the " UI experts " I 've seen seem to take their field in isolation of everything else , which completely defeats the purpose of UI planning .
The overall concept is pretty simple , you have to figure out a way to connect the abstract model of your software with something tangible for the user .
This requires deep understanding of what problem the software is trying to solve , and the user 's prior experience and expectations .
You ca n't get around that by applying some magic formula to arrive at the " perfect " UI .
Take your one size fits all t-shirts and get the hell out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never read a user interface design article or book that I found insightful.
Bickerydyke is right, this article completely glosses over the actual evolution of our current icons and how they changed people's expectations to what they are today.
Instead, he poses some contrived gradient scale of reality -&gt; cartoon and posits this as the only relevant factor.
Who writes these things?
All the "UI experts" I've seen seem to take their field in isolation of everything else, which completely defeats the purpose of UI planning.
The overall concept is pretty simple, you have to figure out a way to connect the abstract model of your software with something tangible for the user.
This requires deep understanding of what problem the software is trying to solve, and the user's prior experience and expectations.
You can't get around that by applying some magic formula to arrive at the "perfect" UI.
Take your one size fits all t-shirts and get the hell out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862828</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264150920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you should be moderated Funny. The article is just silly, starting with such a bad frame and never thinking outside that box, that in that mindset, it&rsquo;s never possible to reach really revolutionary new, good concepts...</p><p>I mean it still assumes there should be icons to click. How silly is that? I do not even assume a mouse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you should be moderated Funny .
The article is just silly , starting with such a bad frame and never thinking outside that box , that in that mindset , it    s never possible to reach really revolutionary new , good concepts...I mean it still assumes there should be icons to click .
How silly is that ?
I do not even assume a mouse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you should be moderated Funny.
The article is just silly, starting with such a bad frame and never thinking outside that box, that in that mindset, it’s never possible to reach really revolutionary new, good concepts...I mean it still assumes there should be icons to click.
How silly is that?
I do not even assume a mouse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859652</id>
	<title>Handbrake is the worst offender</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1264177020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I have to say about Handbrake is fuck that icon.  I don't use the program that often at all.  A few months back I wanted to convert some media files, I'm on vista so I hit the Win key and try to type in the app name.  Now what was that program called, OK I remember the Icon was a pineapple with a drink next to it; I tried blender and about six different drink names, trying to come up with the name.  I ended up having to Google the name</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I have to say about Handbrake is fuck that icon .
I do n't use the program that often at all .
A few months back I wanted to convert some media files , I 'm on vista so I hit the Win key and try to type in the app name .
Now what was that program called , OK I remember the Icon was a pineapple with a drink next to it ; I tried blender and about six different drink names , trying to come up with the name .
I ended up having to Google the name</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I have to say about Handbrake is fuck that icon.
I don't use the program that often at all.
A few months back I wanted to convert some media files, I'm on vista so I hit the Win key and try to type in the app name.
Now what was that program called, OK I remember the Icon was a pineapple with a drink next to it; I tried blender and about six different drink names, trying to come up with the name.
I ended up having to Google the name</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859002</id>
	<title>SAP and other ridiculous steaming piles</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264173480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SAP is one of the worst offenders, but I have to say I've seen the largest collection of poorly thought out icons at work, where someone puts on a dog and pony show to convince our company to buy things, and our company bites without trying it out on a few users first.</p><p>I hate having to 'mouse-over' an icon to find out what it does, and even worse is when it doesn't have a tooltip.  Corporate software seems to be where the worst designs live because anything else is quickly abandoned in favor of something intuitive.</p><p>Thus, corporations tend to increase their own training budgets by basing decisions on bullet-point comparisons instead of real-world usage.  You put something obvious in front of people, they'll be able to figure it out.  But when the "Overview" button is a mountain with random clouds behind it or something, and the "Give me the report based on what I selected" button is in an entirely different frame from the selection criteria, your software is crap.  Yes SAP I'm calling you out, but there are others just like you, which is the only reason you're still in the business.  That and company execs are too embarrassed to simply say "we paid too much, here's your out clause, delete all versions and we're moving to something else".  That would leave you responsible for excess expenditures, while forcing your peons to work with crap software doesn't reveal cold, hard numbers in the form of productivity loss due to training and questions and people just not being able to figure it out and saying to hell with it.</p><p>Look at your training budget before you buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SAP is one of the worst offenders , but I have to say I 've seen the largest collection of poorly thought out icons at work , where someone puts on a dog and pony show to convince our company to buy things , and our company bites without trying it out on a few users first.I hate having to 'mouse-over ' an icon to find out what it does , and even worse is when it does n't have a tooltip .
Corporate software seems to be where the worst designs live because anything else is quickly abandoned in favor of something intuitive.Thus , corporations tend to increase their own training budgets by basing decisions on bullet-point comparisons instead of real-world usage .
You put something obvious in front of people , they 'll be able to figure it out .
But when the " Overview " button is a mountain with random clouds behind it or something , and the " Give me the report based on what I selected " button is in an entirely different frame from the selection criteria , your software is crap .
Yes SAP I 'm calling you out , but there are others just like you , which is the only reason you 're still in the business .
That and company execs are too embarrassed to simply say " we paid too much , here 's your out clause , delete all versions and we 're moving to something else " .
That would leave you responsible for excess expenditures , while forcing your peons to work with crap software does n't reveal cold , hard numbers in the form of productivity loss due to training and questions and people just not being able to figure it out and saying to hell with it.Look at your training budget before you buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SAP is one of the worst offenders, but I have to say I've seen the largest collection of poorly thought out icons at work, where someone puts on a dog and pony show to convince our company to buy things, and our company bites without trying it out on a few users first.I hate having to 'mouse-over' an icon to find out what it does, and even worse is when it doesn't have a tooltip.
Corporate software seems to be where the worst designs live because anything else is quickly abandoned in favor of something intuitive.Thus, corporations tend to increase their own training budgets by basing decisions on bullet-point comparisons instead of real-world usage.
You put something obvious in front of people, they'll be able to figure it out.
But when the "Overview" button is a mountain with random clouds behind it or something, and the "Give me the report based on what I selected" button is in an entirely different frame from the selection criteria, your software is crap.
Yes SAP I'm calling you out, but there are others just like you, which is the only reason you're still in the business.
That and company execs are too embarrassed to simply say "we paid too much, here's your out clause, delete all versions and we're moving to something else".
That would leave you responsible for excess expenditures, while forcing your peons to work with crap software doesn't reveal cold, hard numbers in the form of productivity loss due to training and questions and people just not being able to figure it out and saying to hell with it.Look at your training budget before you buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861468</id>
	<title>Re:Captain obvious.</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1264185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a big reason this blog entry exists is precisely because good design ISN'T obvious, as evidenced by the amount of bad design we see every day.</p><p>I like your reasons for the existence of bad design. The over-zealous guy (I call them my Adobe Employees) that is always trying to make cutting edge stuff in our training that is so fancy that it: a) confuses the learners and b) cripples the computer's cpu cycles.  I'd another designer type--the "doesn't matter" guy who just goes out and grabs a random crappy MS clipart object and slaps it on there because he's so concerned with the background code that he doesn't care about usability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a big reason this blog entry exists is precisely because good design IS N'T obvious , as evidenced by the amount of bad design we see every day.I like your reasons for the existence of bad design .
The over-zealous guy ( I call them my Adobe Employees ) that is always trying to make cutting edge stuff in our training that is so fancy that it : a ) confuses the learners and b ) cripples the computer 's cpu cycles .
I 'd another designer type--the " does n't matter " guy who just goes out and grabs a random crappy MS clipart object and slaps it on there because he 's so concerned with the background code that he does n't care about usability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a big reason this blog entry exists is precisely because good design ISN'T obvious, as evidenced by the amount of bad design we see every day.I like your reasons for the existence of bad design.
The over-zealous guy (I call them my Adobe Employees) that is always trying to make cutting edge stuff in our training that is so fancy that it: a) confuses the learners and b) cripples the computer's cpu cycles.
I'd another designer type--the "doesn't matter" guy who just goes out and grabs a random crappy MS clipart object and slaps it on there because he's so concerned with the background code that he doesn't care about usability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860152</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264179420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are insane... those E17 themes are infected with a contagious winamp mutation.</p><p>Why represent the virual, which everyone is familiar with, with detailed physical approximations that will \_not\_ be displayed spatially. Abstracted is the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are insane... those E17 themes are infected with a contagious winamp mutation.Why represent the virual , which everyone is familiar with , with detailed physical approximations that will \ _not \ _ be displayed spatially .
Abstracted is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are insane... those E17 themes are infected with a contagious winamp mutation.Why represent the virual, which everyone is familiar with, with detailed physical approximations that will \_not\_ be displayed spatially.
Abstracted is the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858764</id>
	<title>Thank you.</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1264172040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really. That was a very nice article that made me think about some things I've never really considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really .
That was a very nice article that made me think about some things I 've never really considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really.
That was a very nice article that made me think about some things I've never really considered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861632</id>
	<title>Re:universal traffic light functionality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264186680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this might be urban myth, but didn't China at one time use green for 'stop' - restful - and red for 'go' (active)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this might be urban myth , but did n't China at one time use green for 'stop ' - restful - and red for 'go ' ( active ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this might be urban myth, but didn't China at one time use green for 'stop' - restful - and red for 'go' (active)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864880</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>name*censored*</author>
	<datestamp>1264162320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apart from maintaining cross-system compatibility (and/or preventing a peculiar form of psychological lock-in by training your users to not understand foreign interfaces), there are certain realities that just make the interface conform to a particular standard. For instance; </p><ol> <li> <b>Rectangles</b>. We've often dreamt of 3D interfaces and interfaces with crazy geometries, but rectangles are just superior - they scale, tessellate, and can be programmed simply (you need only four coordinates - either X*Y,W*H or X1,X2:Y1,Y2), and rendered easily. Windows don't just have to tessellate with other windows, but also with their contents! Circular interfaces might be novel, but they make very poor use of available space (they don't tessellate with their contents or other windows), are harder to program and render, and require the window contents to be a certain shape and position (ie, don't scale well). Not only that, but even the devices dictate rectangles. If you had a totally circular interface, you'd need a circular screen for it. Which means a circular computer (or rectangular sabot, which is a bad option for portables). And circular devices don't pack or port so well. As for 3D - it looks great, but until we have 3D screens AND peripherals to interact with them without getting gorilla arm, we have to use simulated 3D, which is cumbersome, computationally expensive and has no inherent usability advantages (besides the fact that humans can think in 3D easily).</li><li> <b>Windows</b>. A computer, by definition, is multi-purpose. You need some way to pare the functionality out of the computer. Now, modern computers are far, far too complex for any one entity to be able to supply the entire gamut of functionality, from kernel all the way to kid's games (and even if they could, democracy and capitalism have shown us that competition means better products). Enter third-parties. Now, how do you divvy up the workload? The only realistic way is to make each each third party supply one piece of functionality - viz, applications. Ah, but now you want your application to "play nice" with the other applications, since functionalities might compliment one another (eg, web browser + music player + text editor). So, all the application designers have to code to some standard implemented by the system designer ("don't worry about decorating or positioning your window Mr. Application Designer, we'll take care of that"). This benefits all parties - application vendors don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, system designers can make their product more consistent and therefore more attractive to the end user, who enjoy said consistency. And what is a window if not a system-designed container which controls the geometry of each application (so as not to conflict with other applications), and decorates it with various user overrides?</li><li> <b>Menus</b>. Well, you need some way to start and control applications. Now, you could use a number of things; hotkeys, desktop icons, contextual, or sidebars. <ul> <li> <i>Hotkeys</i>. Hotkey environments exist, but they're not popular, because of the massively steep learning curve. </li><li> <i>Desktop Icons</i>. Desktop icons are nice, but they're inaccessible once you have an application obscuring them (plus, you'd need to constantly spawn and remove desktop icons based on system status - eg, task management).</li><li> <i>Contextual</i>. Contextual menus (a la fluxbox) are good, but they have a small learning curve (ever seen a new fluxbox user exclaim "how the hell do I do anything on this damn thing?"?), PLUS they're inaccessible once applications are running (they're contextual, so once you're off the desktop, your menu reflects your application).</li><li> <i>Sidebars</i>. Sidebars are good - they're obvious ("What does "start" do? Oh, it opens a menu for starting things!"), they're always accessible - they're clearly the best choice for most people (disclaimer: I prefer hotkeys, but I'm not your average computer user).</li></ul><p>Now, where do you put a sidebar</p></li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from maintaining cross-system compatibility ( and/or preventing a peculiar form of psychological lock-in by training your users to not understand foreign interfaces ) , there are certain realities that just make the interface conform to a particular standard .
For instance ; Rectangles .
We 've often dreamt of 3D interfaces and interfaces with crazy geometries , but rectangles are just superior - they scale , tessellate , and can be programmed simply ( you need only four coordinates - either X * Y,W * H or X1,X2 : Y1,Y2 ) , and rendered easily .
Windows do n't just have to tessellate with other windows , but also with their contents !
Circular interfaces might be novel , but they make very poor use of available space ( they do n't tessellate with their contents or other windows ) , are harder to program and render , and require the window contents to be a certain shape and position ( ie , do n't scale well ) .
Not only that , but even the devices dictate rectangles .
If you had a totally circular interface , you 'd need a circular screen for it .
Which means a circular computer ( or rectangular sabot , which is a bad option for portables ) .
And circular devices do n't pack or port so well .
As for 3D - it looks great , but until we have 3D screens AND peripherals to interact with them without getting gorilla arm , we have to use simulated 3D , which is cumbersome , computationally expensive and has no inherent usability advantages ( besides the fact that humans can think in 3D easily ) .
Windows. A computer , by definition , is multi-purpose .
You need some way to pare the functionality out of the computer .
Now , modern computers are far , far too complex for any one entity to be able to supply the entire gamut of functionality , from kernel all the way to kid 's games ( and even if they could , democracy and capitalism have shown us that competition means better products ) .
Enter third-parties .
Now , how do you divvy up the workload ?
The only realistic way is to make each each third party supply one piece of functionality - viz , applications .
Ah , but now you want your application to " play nice " with the other applications , since functionalities might compliment one another ( eg , web browser + music player + text editor ) .
So , all the application designers have to code to some standard implemented by the system designer ( " do n't worry about decorating or positioning your window Mr. Application Designer , we 'll take care of that " ) .
This benefits all parties - application vendors do n't have to keep reinventing the wheel , system designers can make their product more consistent and therefore more attractive to the end user , who enjoy said consistency .
And what is a window if not a system-designed container which controls the geometry of each application ( so as not to conflict with other applications ) , and decorates it with various user overrides ?
Menus. Well , you need some way to start and control applications .
Now , you could use a number of things ; hotkeys , desktop icons , contextual , or sidebars .
Hotkeys. Hotkey environments exist , but they 're not popular , because of the massively steep learning curve .
Desktop Icons .
Desktop icons are nice , but they 're inaccessible once you have an application obscuring them ( plus , you 'd need to constantly spawn and remove desktop icons based on system status - eg , task management ) .
Contextual. Contextual menus ( a la fluxbox ) are good , but they have a small learning curve ( ever seen a new fluxbox user exclaim " how the hell do I do anything on this damn thing ? " ?
) , PLUS they 're inaccessible once applications are running ( they 're contextual , so once you 're off the desktop , your menu reflects your application ) .
Sidebars. Sidebars are good - they 're obvious ( " What does " start " do ?
Oh , it opens a menu for starting things !
" ) , they 're always accessible - they 're clearly the best choice for most people ( disclaimer : I prefer hotkeys , but I 'm not your average computer user ) .Now , where do you put a sidebar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from maintaining cross-system compatibility (and/or preventing a peculiar form of psychological lock-in by training your users to not understand foreign interfaces), there are certain realities that just make the interface conform to a particular standard.
For instance;   Rectangles.
We've often dreamt of 3D interfaces and interfaces with crazy geometries, but rectangles are just superior - they scale, tessellate, and can be programmed simply (you need only four coordinates - either X*Y,W*H or X1,X2:Y1,Y2), and rendered easily.
Windows don't just have to tessellate with other windows, but also with their contents!
Circular interfaces might be novel, but they make very poor use of available space (they don't tessellate with their contents or other windows), are harder to program and render, and require the window contents to be a certain shape and position (ie, don't scale well).
Not only that, but even the devices dictate rectangles.
If you had a totally circular interface, you'd need a circular screen for it.
Which means a circular computer (or rectangular sabot, which is a bad option for portables).
And circular devices don't pack or port so well.
As for 3D - it looks great, but until we have 3D screens AND peripherals to interact with them without getting gorilla arm, we have to use simulated 3D, which is cumbersome, computationally expensive and has no inherent usability advantages (besides the fact that humans can think in 3D easily).
Windows. A computer, by definition, is multi-purpose.
You need some way to pare the functionality out of the computer.
Now, modern computers are far, far too complex for any one entity to be able to supply the entire gamut of functionality, from kernel all the way to kid's games (and even if they could, democracy and capitalism have shown us that competition means better products).
Enter third-parties.
Now, how do you divvy up the workload?
The only realistic way is to make each each third party supply one piece of functionality - viz, applications.
Ah, but now you want your application to "play nice" with the other applications, since functionalities might compliment one another (eg, web browser + music player + text editor).
So, all the application designers have to code to some standard implemented by the system designer ("don't worry about decorating or positioning your window Mr. Application Designer, we'll take care of that").
This benefits all parties - application vendors don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, system designers can make their product more consistent and therefore more attractive to the end user, who enjoy said consistency.
And what is a window if not a system-designed container which controls the geometry of each application (so as not to conflict with other applications), and decorates it with various user overrides?
Menus. Well, you need some way to start and control applications.
Now, you could use a number of things; hotkeys, desktop icons, contextual, or sidebars.
Hotkeys. Hotkey environments exist, but they're not popular, because of the massively steep learning curve.
Desktop Icons.
Desktop icons are nice, but they're inaccessible once you have an application obscuring them (plus, you'd need to constantly spawn and remove desktop icons based on system status - eg, task management).
Contextual. Contextual menus (a la fluxbox) are good, but they have a small learning curve (ever seen a new fluxbox user exclaim "how the hell do I do anything on this damn thing?"?
), PLUS they're inaccessible once applications are running (they're contextual, so once you're off the desktop, your menu reflects your application).
Sidebars. Sidebars are good - they're obvious ("What does "start" do?
Oh, it opens a menu for starting things!
"), they're always accessible - they're clearly the best choice for most people (disclaimer: I prefer hotkeys, but I'm not your average computer user).Now, where do you put a sidebar</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859254</id>
	<title>Re:Computer HUD</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1264174980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> If you want to see porn, you click on.....oh, never mind. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to see porn , you click on.....oh , never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you want to see porn, you click on.....oh, never mind. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860692</id>
	<title>Re:It depends where you want to draw the line.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264182060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "vector graphics" of <i>2001</i>, though merely cell animation back projected onto movie screens embedded in the Discovery's sets, have a really timeless quality. Attempts to render the same graphics using rasterization and CRTs in more recent movies (such as <i>2010</i>) look quite dated in comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " vector graphics " of 2001 , though merely cell animation back projected onto movie screens embedded in the Discovery 's sets , have a really timeless quality .
Attempts to render the same graphics using rasterization and CRTs in more recent movies ( such as 2010 ) look quite dated in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "vector graphics" of 2001, though merely cell animation back projected onto movie screens embedded in the Discovery's sets, have a really timeless quality.
Attempts to render the same graphics using rasterization and CRTs in more recent movies (such as 2010) look quite dated in comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</id>
	<title>paws</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1264174020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forget what the application (or was it a game?) was... probably on the Amiga. The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.</p><p>In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right, presumably to indicate movement. Most people i've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.</p><p>To be fair, there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forget what the application ( or was it a game ?
) was... probably on the Amiga .
The 'pause ' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run ' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right , presumably to indicate movement .
Most people i 've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.To be fair , there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forget what the application (or was it a game?
) was... probably on the Amiga.
The 'pause' button was a pair of animal footprints... paws.In the Clarion 5.x Development environment the 'compile and run' button is a little blue cloud with a bunch of lines off to the right, presumably to indicate movement.
Most people i've spoken to know that icon as the 'blue fart'.To be fair, there is only so much you can do in 8x8 or 16x16 pixels...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861678</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1264187040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive. I know the reply button starts a reply. The Cancel button cancels it. The option button lets me see various options. Very intuitive, I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning. That by definition makes it intuitive.</p></div><p>And the "Quote Parent" button adds the prefix "My daddy always used to say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." to your reply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can give me flack for it , but I 'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive .
I know the reply button starts a reply .
The Cancel button cancels it .
The option button lets me see various options .
Very intuitive , I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning .
That by definition makes it intuitive.And the " Quote Parent " button adds the prefix " My daddy always used to say ... " to your reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive.
I know the reply button starts a reply.
The Cancel button cancels it.
The option button lets me see various options.
Very intuitive, I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning.
That by definition makes it intuitive.And the "Quote Parent" button adds the prefix "My daddy always used to say ..." to your reply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30887488</id>
	<title>Re:Thank you, Captain Obvious!</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1264413600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I AM a developer but I know how important good design is.</p><p>But TFA is as helpfull for designers as a "How to improve your code? - Just program less bugs!" article would be for software developers. (along with a few examples from thedailywtf.com, but without any hints on how to avoid them)</p><p>The article would make perfect sense as a part of "10 design commandments", "What every non-designer should know about UI-Design" or "GUIs for dummies", but here it's an obvious case of "Look at me, I'm ruminating obvious stuff - Hooray I'm a blogger"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I AM a developer but I know how important good design is.But TFA is as helpfull for designers as a " How to improve your code ?
- Just program less bugs !
" article would be for software developers .
( along with a few examples from thedailywtf.com , but without any hints on how to avoid them ) The article would make perfect sense as a part of " 10 design commandments " , " What every non-designer should know about UI-Design " or " GUIs for dummies " , but here it 's an obvious case of " Look at me , I 'm ruminating obvious stuff - Hooray I 'm a blogger "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I AM a developer but I know how important good design is.But TFA is as helpfull for designers as a "How to improve your code?
- Just program less bugs!
" article would be for software developers.
(along with a few examples from thedailywtf.com, but without any hints on how to avoid them)The article would make perfect sense as a part of "10 design commandments", "What every non-designer should know about UI-Design" or "GUIs for dummies", but here it's an obvious case of "Look at me, I'm ruminating obvious stuff - Hooray I'm a blogger"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264179780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.</p></div><p>No there are lots of intuitive interfaces, there just aren't many (if any) "universal" interfaces. You can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive. I know the reply button starts a reply. The Cancel button cancels it. The option button lets me see various options. Very intuitive, I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning. That by definition makes it intuitive.</p><p>However, if I was from Japan, I wouldn't have any clue what any of these buttons mean. I'd probably get so fed up with it I'd request a Japanese version of Slashdot.</p><p>So what it comes down to is trying to make something universally understood. Surprisingly enough, any country that has vehicular traffic uses Green for Go and Red for stop. Whether thats based on open standards or some psychological root, I don't know. So if you had an option that you could start or stop, putting the same image in green and the other in red would show which one starts it and which one stops it. Similarily, the symbols on every Media player for Play, Pause, Rewind, Fast Forward, Stop, and Record are also Universal across the planet. So it makes sense to put them on any application that plays media.</p><p>There are a handful of things like this out there. It's not impossible to create an intuitive computer interface. The tricky part is to make it universal across all demographics of people who will use it, especially if there is a language barrier. This is where icons with the help of tooltip popups can be great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as " intuitive " computer interfaces.No there are lots of intuitive interfaces , there just are n't many ( if any ) " universal " interfaces .
You can give me flack for it , but I 'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive .
I know the reply button starts a reply .
The Cancel button cancels it .
The option button lets me see various options .
Very intuitive , I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning .
That by definition makes it intuitive.However , if I was from Japan , I would n't have any clue what any of these buttons mean .
I 'd probably get so fed up with it I 'd request a Japanese version of Slashdot.So what it comes down to is trying to make something universally understood .
Surprisingly enough , any country that has vehicular traffic uses Green for Go and Red for stop .
Whether thats based on open standards or some psychological root , I do n't know .
So if you had an option that you could start or stop , putting the same image in green and the other in red would show which one starts it and which one stops it .
Similarily , the symbols on every Media player for Play , Pause , Rewind , Fast Forward , Stop , and Record are also Universal across the planet .
So it makes sense to put them on any application that plays media.There are a handful of things like this out there .
It 's not impossible to create an intuitive computer interface .
The tricky part is to make it universal across all demographics of people who will use it , especially if there is a language barrier .
This is where icons with the help of tooltip popups can be great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as "intuitive" computer interfaces.No there are lots of intuitive interfaces, there just aren't many (if any) "universal" interfaces.
You can give me flack for it, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the Slashdot comment interface is very intuitive.
I know the reply button starts a reply.
The Cancel button cancels it.
The option button lets me see various options.
Very intuitive, I have not needed to press any of these buttons to know their respective meaning.
That by definition makes it intuitive.However, if I was from Japan, I wouldn't have any clue what any of these buttons mean.
I'd probably get so fed up with it I'd request a Japanese version of Slashdot.So what it comes down to is trying to make something universally understood.
Surprisingly enough, any country that has vehicular traffic uses Green for Go and Red for stop.
Whether thats based on open standards or some psychological root, I don't know.
So if you had an option that you could start or stop, putting the same image in green and the other in red would show which one starts it and which one stops it.
Similarily, the symbols on every Media player for Play, Pause, Rewind, Fast Forward, Stop, and Record are also Universal across the planet.
So it makes sense to put them on any application that plays media.There are a handful of things like this out there.
It's not impossible to create an intuitive computer interface.
The tricky part is to make it universal across all demographics of people who will use it, especially if there is a language barrier.
This is where icons with the help of tooltip popups can be great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859770</id>
	<title>Captain obvious.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1264177620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this guy says is true; it's also obvious. There are two reasons why we encounter unintuitive icons. The first is an overzealous designer who thinks he is going to be creative by not conforming to conventions; this is where I find Linux GUIs tend to fail miserably. It seems whoever designs their interfaces tend to be going for different as opposed to intuitive. The second is a more pervasive problem: trying to convey an abstract concept.</p><p>Every instance Lukas describes is straightforward and easy to represent. The last set of icons, the leaf, acorn and cone aren't so much icons as they are logos for those particular applications. People will associate those marks with the application because they've seen the application first. Sit in front of computer with these icons dumped onto the task bar, having never seen them before, and people will have no clue what those applications are all about.</p><p>Simplifying graphics used to be more of a necessity because of lower resolutions and and fewer colors. That is no longer a concern. While I prefer more minimalist designs there is something appealing and immediately obvious about a rich, nicely rendered icon. The example he uses to argue against richer icons is pretty weak. I could drop a different photo of a camera in that space and it would be just as informative as the simple icon. Obviously there's a balance between aesthetic appeal and conveying an appropriate level of information. And consideration has to be given towards where those graphics will reside.</p><p>Well, this blogger has done his job. Regardless of how simplistic and obvious his argument is here we are discussing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this guy says is true ; it 's also obvious .
There are two reasons why we encounter unintuitive icons .
The first is an overzealous designer who thinks he is going to be creative by not conforming to conventions ; this is where I find Linux GUIs tend to fail miserably .
It seems whoever designs their interfaces tend to be going for different as opposed to intuitive .
The second is a more pervasive problem : trying to convey an abstract concept.Every instance Lukas describes is straightforward and easy to represent .
The last set of icons , the leaf , acorn and cone are n't so much icons as they are logos for those particular applications .
People will associate those marks with the application because they 've seen the application first .
Sit in front of computer with these icons dumped onto the task bar , having never seen them before , and people will have no clue what those applications are all about.Simplifying graphics used to be more of a necessity because of lower resolutions and and fewer colors .
That is no longer a concern .
While I prefer more minimalist designs there is something appealing and immediately obvious about a rich , nicely rendered icon .
The example he uses to argue against richer icons is pretty weak .
I could drop a different photo of a camera in that space and it would be just as informative as the simple icon .
Obviously there 's a balance between aesthetic appeal and conveying an appropriate level of information .
And consideration has to be given towards where those graphics will reside.Well , this blogger has done his job .
Regardless of how simplistic and obvious his argument is here we are discussing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this guy says is true; it's also obvious.
There are two reasons why we encounter unintuitive icons.
The first is an overzealous designer who thinks he is going to be creative by not conforming to conventions; this is where I find Linux GUIs tend to fail miserably.
It seems whoever designs their interfaces tend to be going for different as opposed to intuitive.
The second is a more pervasive problem: trying to convey an abstract concept.Every instance Lukas describes is straightforward and easy to represent.
The last set of icons, the leaf, acorn and cone aren't so much icons as they are logos for those particular applications.
People will associate those marks with the application because they've seen the application first.
Sit in front of computer with these icons dumped onto the task bar, having never seen them before, and people will have no clue what those applications are all about.Simplifying graphics used to be more of a necessity because of lower resolutions and and fewer colors.
That is no longer a concern.
While I prefer more minimalist designs there is something appealing and immediately obvious about a rich, nicely rendered icon.
The example he uses to argue against richer icons is pretty weak.
I could drop a different photo of a camera in that space and it would be just as informative as the simple icon.
Obviously there's a balance between aesthetic appeal and conveying an appropriate level of information.
And consideration has to be given towards where those graphics will reside.Well, this blogger has done his job.
Regardless of how simplistic and obvious his argument is here we are discussing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</id>
	<title>The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>The Slowest Zombie</author>
	<datestamp>1264179600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Toward the end of the article, the author indirectly brings up a very good question:

Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone?? Is it because it's kind of the shape of a CRT?  Is it cautioning us about the kind of videos we'd watch that came from the Internet? Maybe it's just constantly under construction (even though it's not in beta)?  Perhaps it's something more technical and is a reference to the rods and cones that are the light receptors in our eyes. Or maybe I have it all wrong and it's a piece of candy corn sitting on an orange plate, to show how VLC serves up eye candy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Toward the end of the article , the author indirectly brings up a very good question : Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone ? ?
Is it because it 's kind of the shape of a CRT ?
Is it cautioning us about the kind of videos we 'd watch that came from the Internet ?
Maybe it 's just constantly under construction ( even though it 's not in beta ) ?
Perhaps it 's something more technical and is a reference to the rods and cones that are the light receptors in our eyes .
Or maybe I have it all wrong and it 's a piece of candy corn sitting on an orange plate , to show how VLC serves up eye candy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toward the end of the article, the author indirectly brings up a very good question:

Why the heck is the VLC media player icon an orange traffic cone??
Is it because it's kind of the shape of a CRT?
Is it cautioning us about the kind of videos we'd watch that came from the Internet?
Maybe it's just constantly under construction (even though it's not in beta)?
Perhaps it's something more technical and is a reference to the rods and cones that are the light receptors in our eyes.
Or maybe I have it all wrong and it's a piece of candy corn sitting on an orange plate, to show how VLC serves up eye candy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860494</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264181040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Icons are kind of like playing pictionary with somebody from a different culture.  Representative images greatly require common references to understand properly.  Drawing an armored guy on a horse and a picture the joint between tibia and thigh only gets "Knights who say Ni" if you come from or are familiar with a european culture that had mounted horsemen in a feudal government.  Oh, and had seen Monty Python.</p><p>Otherwise you might guess "chronic joint pain" or something.</p><p>Alternately, reference Troi's speech about cups in the TNG episode "Darmok"(and Jalad at Tanagra)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Icons are kind of like playing pictionary with somebody from a different culture .
Representative images greatly require common references to understand properly .
Drawing an armored guy on a horse and a picture the joint between tibia and thigh only gets " Knights who say Ni " if you come from or are familiar with a european culture that had mounted horsemen in a feudal government .
Oh , and had seen Monty Python.Otherwise you might guess " chronic joint pain " or something.Alternately , reference Troi 's speech about cups in the TNG episode " Darmok " ( and Jalad at Tanagra )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Icons are kind of like playing pictionary with somebody from a different culture.
Representative images greatly require common references to understand properly.
Drawing an armored guy on a horse and a picture the joint between tibia and thigh only gets "Knights who say Ni" if you come from or are familiar with a european culture that had mounted horsemen in a feudal government.
Oh, and had seen Monty Python.Otherwise you might guess "chronic joint pain" or something.Alternately, reference Troi's speech about cups in the TNG episode "Darmok"(and Jalad at Tanagra)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861720</id>
	<title>Re:I am icon-impaired...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264187400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit trying to "read" the rebuses.  You just have to memorize them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit trying to " read " the rebuses .
You just have to memorize them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit trying to "read" the rebuses.
You just have to memorize them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864150</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>daniel.b.douglas</author>
	<datestamp>1264158000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Humorous nitpick: in countries such as Israel where the language is read right-to-left, American style fast-foward/rewind buttons seem extremely unintuitive and backwards to what you would expect.  There's just not the same cultural sense that right is forward and left is backward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humorous nitpick : in countries such as Israel where the language is read right-to-left , American style fast-foward/rewind buttons seem extremely unintuitive and backwards to what you would expect .
There 's just not the same cultural sense that right is forward and left is backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humorous nitpick: in countries such as Israel where the language is read right-to-left, American style fast-foward/rewind buttons seem extremely unintuitive and backwards to what you would expect.
There's just not the same cultural sense that right is forward and left is backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860348</id>
	<title>Re:Who else remembers the horror?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264180440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Audio players from the 90s? You still haven't seen todays virtual <a href="http://static.kvraudio.com/i/b/arp2600v2y.jpg" title="kvraudio.com" rel="nofollow">synthesizers</a> [kvraudio.com] and <a href="http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4395/nomadfactorylm662bs9.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">effects</a> [imageshack.us]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Audio players from the 90s ?
You still have n't seen todays virtual synthesizers [ kvraudio.com ] and effects [ imageshack.us ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audio players from the 90s?
You still haven't seen todays virtual synthesizers [kvraudio.com] and effects [imageshack.us]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860470</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing icon practices</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1264180980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I can justify your comment in the IT corporate America world, but in the general, uneducated/computer-illiterate public, there is definitely a stagnant fear of users to play with interfaces/click things in which they do not know the result. I have heard many family members/elderly/uninformed talk as if clicking the wrong thing will "break-it". This fear then feeds into the purchasing decision of getting an apple, its new and unknown. Its a large reason apple doesn't hold more market share in the corporate &amp; desktop realm. People get familiar with their operating systems, websites, and programs, but only to the extent they need. I bet you their are millions of grandma's who would never click 'defragment' because it is an intimidatingly unknown word, while millions of office workers would have to problem clicking things like 'defragment' or 'plot-regression' or whatnot, because they <i> understand it.</i> <br> <br>In summary, it is sometimes this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I can justify your comment in the IT corporate America world , but in the general , uneducated/computer-illiterate public , there is definitely a stagnant fear of users to play with interfaces/click things in which they do not know the result .
I have heard many family members/elderly/uninformed talk as if clicking the wrong thing will " break-it " .
This fear then feeds into the purchasing decision of getting an apple , its new and unknown .
Its a large reason apple does n't hold more market share in the corporate &amp; desktop realm .
People get familiar with their operating systems , websites , and programs , but only to the extent they need .
I bet you their are millions of grandma 's who would never click 'defragment ' because it is an intimidatingly unknown word , while millions of office workers would have to problem clicking things like 'defragment ' or 'plot-regression ' or whatnot , because they understand it .
In summary , it is sometimes this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I can justify your comment in the IT corporate America world, but in the general, uneducated/computer-illiterate public, there is definitely a stagnant fear of users to play with interfaces/click things in which they do not know the result.
I have heard many family members/elderly/uninformed talk as if clicking the wrong thing will "break-it".
This fear then feeds into the purchasing decision of getting an apple, its new and unknown.
Its a large reason apple doesn't hold more market share in the corporate &amp; desktop realm.
People get familiar with their operating systems, websites, and programs, but only to the extent they need.
I bet you their are millions of grandma's who would never click 'defragment' because it is an intimidatingly unknown word, while millions of office workers would have to problem clicking things like 'defragment' or 'plot-regression' or whatnot, because they  understand it.
In summary, it is sometimes this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859324</id>
	<title>Re:paws</title>
	<author>BlackSash</author>
	<datestamp>1264175340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would likely be the original Lemmings. Now there was a game that got some of its UI elements correct!<br>The hell with icons, let's just depict the actual thing the little dullards will do!</p><p>Want to kill them all? Hit the NUKE button.</p><p>Ahhh good times, good times...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would likely be the original Lemmings .
Now there was a game that got some of its UI elements correct ! The hell with icons , let 's just depict the actual thing the little dullards will do ! Want to kill them all ?
Hit the NUKE button.Ahhh good times , good times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would likely be the original Lemmings.
Now there was a game that got some of its UI elements correct!The hell with icons, let's just depict the actual thing the little dullards will do!Want to kill them all?
Hit the NUKE button.Ahhh good times, good times...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30876924</id>
	<title>Re:The Traffic Cone</title>
	<author>Aquila della Notte</author>
	<datestamp>1264328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aaah, it's a traffic cone! I've used VLC for years and had the icon on my desktop, but until this moment I never realized the icon is a traffic cone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaah , it 's a traffic cone !
I 've used VLC for years and had the icon on my desktop , but until this moment I never realized the icon is a traffic cone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaah, it's a traffic cone!
I've used VLC for years and had the icon on my desktop, but until this moment I never realized the icon is a traffic cone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859356</id>
	<title>Re:Computer HUD</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1264175580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds completely unworkable and even more pointless.</p><p>* Computers stack things. The CD drive's above the HDD, say. That's the only two interesting bits, in the same place.<br>* Optiplex motherboards have expanses of nothingness. Unless there's something to be gained from clicking on conductors?<br>* Power supplies, memory and CPUs are huge and mostly uninteresting.</p><p>I don't want to see the web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds completely unworkable and even more pointless .
* Computers stack things .
The CD drive 's above the HDD , say .
That 's the only two interesting bits , in the same place .
* Optiplex motherboards have expanses of nothingness .
Unless there 's something to be gained from clicking on conductors ?
* Power supplies , memory and CPUs are huge and mostly uninteresting.I do n't want to see the web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds completely unworkable and even more pointless.
* Computers stack things.
The CD drive's above the HDD, say.
That's the only two interesting bits, in the same place.
* Optiplex motherboards have expanses of nothingness.
Unless there's something to be gained from clicking on conductors?
* Power supplies, memory and CPUs are huge and mostly uninteresting.I don't want to see the web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860484</id>
	<title>We have a universal system of symbols.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264180980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called "written language".  Instead we get these asinine rebuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " written language " .
Instead we get these asinine rebuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "written language".
Instead we get these asinine rebuses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862728</id>
	<title>What "realism"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264193700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s a GUI. On a screen. Not a mechanical button from a 1980s VCR.<br>The only thing &ldquo;realism&ldquo; does, is limit you, and create analogies that do not fit.</p><p>Besides: Who came up with the stupid idea of replacing everything with symbols, so that you have to guess what it means? The worst offenders are those that only offer on-hover text, or even no text at all.<br>I wish they would make a big icon, linking to &ldquo;rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/&rdquo; or &ldquo;deltree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/y c:\&rdquo;, on their own desktop, then forget what it means, and click it.</p><p>Stupid, stupid, stupid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s a GUI .
On a screen .
Not a mechanical button from a 1980s VCR.The only thing    realism    does , is limit you , and create analogies that do not fit.Besides : Who came up with the stupid idea of replacing everything with symbols , so that you have to guess what it means ?
The worst offenders are those that only offer on-hover text , or even no text at all.I wish they would make a big icon , linking to    rm -rf /    or    deltree /y c : \    , on their own desktop , then forget what it means , and click it.Stupid , stupid , stupid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s a GUI.
On a screen.
Not a mechanical button from a 1980s VCR.The only thing “realism“ does, is limit you, and create analogies that do not fit.Besides: Who came up with the stupid idea of replacing everything with symbols, so that you have to guess what it means?
The worst offenders are those that only offer on-hover text, or even no text at all.I wish they would make a big icon, linking to “rm -rf /” or “deltree /y c:\”, on their own desktop, then forget what it means, and click it.Stupid, stupid, stupid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30887488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30871126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30868140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30877438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30869054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30876924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30874044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0815216_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860470
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30871126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861514
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30874044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30868140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30864048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30858996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30869054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30862636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30888768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30876924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30877438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30861208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30863048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0815216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30859522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30887488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0815216.30860564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
