Re: HTML icon set was: Additions to the CGI archive
Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl
Message-id: <9401071700.AA07217=guido@voorn.cwi.nl>
To: Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-talk@dxcern.cern.ch
Subject: Re: HTML icon set was: Additions to the CGI archive
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jan 1994 16:23:05 MET."
<9401071623.AA08021@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
From: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl
X-Organization: CWI (Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica)
X-Address: P.O. Box 94079, 1090 GB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
X-Phone: +31 20 5924127 (work), +31 20 6225521 (home), +31 20 5924199 (fax)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 18:00:20 +0100
Sender: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl
> >> So if anyone is designing an HTML icon set (is anyone doing that?)
> >> I think it would be a good idea to consider this larger set.
>
> > What says the author of the HTML+ draft and the WWW gurus. A signal from
> > there could help to initiate first steps.
> Lets get some graphics artists to work on a really cool set of icons
> (as good as Mosaic's world icon), which we can all share.
Hmm... Shouldn't we first agree on an abstract set of icons with
(fuzzy) semantics attached to them before letting the artists loose?
I can imagine that different clients (assuming there is life after
Mosaic :-) may use different icon styles, corresponding to the style
of the rest of their user interface (e.g. monochrome, grayscale 3D
look, "MTV look", ...) with the same semantics (e.g. file, folder,
program, left arrow, explanation, definition, image, video, sound,
animation, game, ...). I have a feeling that the development of this
latter set is more important -- or have I missed total disagreement
here?
--Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam <Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl>
URL: <http://www.cwi.nl/cwi/people/Guido.van.Rossum.html>