Jeff Ginger | Art Studio 444 | 02.13.2007
Interpretations
So I honestly didn't have much to say about this article. It makes light of the social construction that feeds into our creation of icons. I gather the big important key words in italics - positive, logical, consistency, reduction, and more. About the only portion I didn't agree with was the author's statement that the traditional figures for male and female were "loaded with cultural associations - 'public,' 'neutral,' 'modern.'" Having the male characters represent the 'norm' for people is a continuation of the male majority/domination tradition of our society. The male symbol shouldn't have any more reason to being the standard than the female. I do understand the need for consistency. The picture gets a little more complex - when you figure in the clothing as the primary identification tool for the gender of the figures. So are guys wearing kilts to use the women's room and women wearing pants to use the men's? I don't think these icons are neutral or modern.
Solutions
I propose a new standard - use of the male and female symbols. Some combination of the two could represent people (or perhaps a new symbol). Size could be used to represent various ages. I don't know if my proposal is completely practical, but I feel like it's less politically loaded and considerably more feminist than the current state of affairs.
Questions for Further Study
- Which leads me to my only real question about the work - do we have any other needs for new icons and pictograms? Would a new set be something required for our new age of expression full of equality and with references to increasingly abstract ideas like the internet? Do we have this set already with the icons on our computers?
- What ways can we creatively use icons and symbols in interface?
