[ Thanks to Jean-Marc Orliaguet for this
link. ]
“From a semiotic point of view this paper discusses why
indexical and iconic forms of interaction with computers are, in
the perspective of digital evolution, reactionary positions, and
why the only revolutionary approaches are to be found in symbolic
modes communication…”
“The symbol…is a mode where the signifier is connected to the
referent by arbitrary rules, chosen by pure convention and usage.
As a result, symbols exist for themselves, free from any sort of
motivation and necessity as present in icons and indices. For
instance in UNIX, the command ls ( the signifier ) outputs a list
of files in a directory ( the referent ), and even if the English
verb “to list” is at the origin of the symbol “ls”, it neither
excludes other spellings nor makes this very interpretation a
necessity…”
“By drawing an analogy with how violently people reacted
against abstract art in the beginning of the 20th century and how
users today react against non-iconic user interfaces, one
understands why the amount of realism involved in iconic
representations is a sensitive issue. Too little realism in
icons will make sign interpretation ambiguous and if the icon fails
to communicate its iconicity, it is interpreted as an arbitrary
sign : a symbol. As a corollary, symbols can be seen as icons or
indices that have failed to communicate their indexicality or
iconicity.”