Post by chriscrawford on Oct 25, 2015 14:58:28 GMT -8
We have run into an interesting problem regarding the representation of auragons in the icon-language, and I am starting this thread to enable discussion of the issue.
The starting point is Luc's work on the sympols for the language. Here, for example, is how he represents auragons in the sentence "Camiggdo tells Skordokott that she wants him to tell her how many {red|green|blue} auragons that Koopie possesses."
The problem started when Luis Bello prepared some gorgeous animations for the combat sequence. I can't show them here (they're not finished), but here is a frame from one of them:
Beautiful, isn't it? He has produced two other animations, so that there is one animation for each of the auragons, each of them unique.
I thought it was obvious that Luc would have to replace his abstract auragon images with images from the animations. After all, if the language talks about something, the language should show it, not some abstraction. If I want to talk about a bicycle, the language should show a bicycle, not some abstraction, right?
But there are a couple of problems with this. First, we do use abstractions elsewhere in the language. For example, in many of our icons, we use an abstraction of a person to represent the verb -- see the verb in the above sentence; it's the second icon in the upper line.
A second problem arises from the fact that the auragon will have to be shrunk drastically in order to fit into the tiny space allotted to it. Here is what the verb looks like with the auragon in question:
As you can see, the auragon is squashed down so small that it's hard to recognize. Also, using the specific auragon symbol in the icon would require three different verbs (one for each of the three types of auragon) whereas the current system Luc has built uses a single verb and a black auragon, along with an adverb appended to the verb that specifies the color of the auragon.
Here's another argument to add to the confusion: Luc uses the same "circular triangle" arrangement (I call it the "yin yang yung" symbol) to represent numbers. When a segment is filled with white, it represents a positive number; when it is filled with black, it represents a negative number; when it is empty, it represents zero. I claim that this creates confusion: does the symbol indicate numerals or auragons? Luc can defend the arrangement with the point that the colors distinguish the situations, but the fact remains that his use of the black "yin yang yung" symbol in the sentence above appears to be saying that the subject wants "negative three".
That's how I view the issue. I argue that the original icons should be replaced with icons representing the new animations. Luc argues that we should stick with the original icons. Please wait until Luc has posted his arguments before posting your own thoughts on the matter.
The starting point is Luc's work on the sympols for the language. Here, for example, is how he represents auragons in the sentence "Camiggdo tells Skordokott that she wants him to tell her how many {red|green|blue} auragons that Koopie possesses."
The problem started when Luis Bello prepared some gorgeous animations for the combat sequence. I can't show them here (they're not finished), but here is a frame from one of them:
Beautiful, isn't it? He has produced two other animations, so that there is one animation for each of the auragons, each of them unique.
I thought it was obvious that Luc would have to replace his abstract auragon images with images from the animations. After all, if the language talks about something, the language should show it, not some abstraction. If I want to talk about a bicycle, the language should show a bicycle, not some abstraction, right?
But there are a couple of problems with this. First, we do use abstractions elsewhere in the language. For example, in many of our icons, we use an abstraction of a person to represent the verb -- see the verb in the above sentence; it's the second icon in the upper line.
A second problem arises from the fact that the auragon will have to be shrunk drastically in order to fit into the tiny space allotted to it. Here is what the verb looks like with the auragon in question:
As you can see, the auragon is squashed down so small that it's hard to recognize. Also, using the specific auragon symbol in the icon would require three different verbs (one for each of the three types of auragon) whereas the current system Luc has built uses a single verb and a black auragon, along with an adverb appended to the verb that specifies the color of the auragon.
Here's another argument to add to the confusion: Luc uses the same "circular triangle" arrangement (I call it the "yin yang yung" symbol) to represent numbers. When a segment is filled with white, it represents a positive number; when it is filled with black, it represents a negative number; when it is empty, it represents zero. I claim that this creates confusion: does the symbol indicate numerals or auragons? Luc can defend the arrangement with the point that the colors distinguish the situations, but the fact remains that his use of the black "yin yang yung" symbol in the sentence above appears to be saying that the subject wants "negative three".
That's how I view the issue. I argue that the original icons should be replaced with icons representing the new animations. Luc argues that we should stick with the original icons. Please wait until Luc has posted his arguments before posting your own thoughts on the matter.
