Talk:OLPC Human Interface Guidelines/The Sugar Interface/Icons

I guess this starts the remarks on Icons for the Sugar Interface - I am surprised there is no prior entry.

The so-called "XO" icon should be redesigned:

It is supposed to represent the user - in an abstract iconic way - but sadly, it also looks very much like a symbol widely associated with mortality, toxicity and military killing - the skull and crossbones, cf. Skull_and_crossbones, Jolly_Roger, and Totenkopf. (The nicest associations one can offer are a parochial reference to a certain Yale University society or what SCO might say about Linux whenever Steve Ballmer has a bad hair day. <G>)

The binding of the symbol to these horrific meanings is a reflection of a biological fact about the last parts of a human corpse to decay, and is not especially tied to a particular culture.

Surely the intention was to represent a (living) human being, in particular a child, without biased reference to a particular sex, race or dress-style. I'd argue there are better designs one might use.

One example is direct use of the oldest Chinese ideograph for child/baby, as shown in the graphic above. What appears to be something of a derivative was in fact used within the logo for the International Year of the Child in 1979.

Note that a large head/torso ratio not only reflects the biology of children, but also the way in which child-made art focuses on the head in early Lowenfeld developmental stages.

Alternately, one might use variants on the "smiley-face", but avoid the Microsoft Bob "curse" by making the face either simpler or more complex.

Yet another choice would be a head-profile silhouette, cropped to include only the front of the face to avoid issues about dress and hairstyle, something not much unlike this. But this design is disfavored because it scales down poorly.

Docdtv 07:44, 1 December 2006 (EST)