Right.  Well, I'd be happy to do a claw hammer if desired, but I really think that time is better spent brainstorming on metaphors for "programming" itself. To be certain, all category icons are metaphorical: witness the graphics:paintbrush example.  But in this case the visual metaphor used suggests something that itself a conceptual metaphor for the task.  In other words, graphics:paintbrush :: audio:musical note, but !: programming:construction hardware.  Namely, the tool/hardware is a metaphor for construction work, and then construction work is a metaphor for computer programming.  I don't think newcomers get that two-leap metaphor inherently, it's certainly not the only two-step metaphor that would work, but a single-step metaphor would be easier to understand. For example, a hastily brainstormed list of visual metaphors that come directly from programming itself or the task of working at programming: flowchart ones and zeroes building blocks computer itself punchcards keyboards blinking LEDs state diagrams turing machines bugs Sure, punchcards are ancient history; I only know of them from stories told by my professors in college.  But they aren't used for anything else; if you recognize one there's no chance you will misunderstand what it represents.  Bugs, the opposite problem.  I'm not aware of any entomology apps whatsoever, but there's potential confusion.  But construction tools are also used in the "settings" and "accessories" metaphors, not to mention the more direct association with CAD/CAM/CNC -type apps. I did a cursory image search on Google just now on "programming", "debug", "compile", and "computer science" (an arbitrary list).  And among those terms, state diagrams/flowcharts are far and away the most common result (well, aside from faculty mugshots....).  Anybody else care to see what that stirs up, metaphor-wise? Nate <div>On 3/13/07, Andreas Nilsson <<a href="mailto:nisses.mail@home.se">nisses.mail@home.se</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Nathan! I was referring to a drawn proposal for a new developer category icon, I was under the impression you had fixed one. Sorry for being unclear. - Andreas Nathan Willis wrote: > This one what? > > Nate > > On 3/13/07, *Andreas Nilsson* <<a href="mailto:nisses.mail@home.se">nisses.mail@home.se</a> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:nisses.mail@home.se">nisses.mail@home.se</a>>> wrote: > >     Hi Nathan! >     Do you have this one ready so I can take a peek at it somewhere? >     - Andreas > >     Nathan Willis wrote: >     > See, I think that's the important distinction -- the toolbox is from >     > the "tool" element of the construction metaphor, not the >     danger/safety >     > element.  Everybody at the construction site wears boots, too, >     but the >     > image of a boot doesn't communicate what you want. >     > >     > As far as the hammer itself goes, sure not everyone uses one all >     the >     > time, but then again I'm looking at the Edgy Applications menu right >     > now and the "graphics" category is represented by a paintbrush, the >     > "sound and video" category by a director's clapboard, and the >     office >     > category by a pen cup.  Does every artist carry a paintbrush?  Do >     > *any* of the "sound* apps incorporate anything analogous to the >     > director's clapboard?  Do we all have pen cups in out offices -- >     and >     > if so, are they what we do our office work with?  It's not necessary >     > that the tool used in a category icon be universally required >     for all >     > the tasks in that category -- and a good thing, too, since that >     would >     > be impossible.  What it does have to do is communicate and be >     visually >     > recognizable.  My point was that the hard hat does neither of those >     > things. >     > >     > I personally don't think that hammers or toolboxes intrinsically >     > relate to programming at all; we may have gotten used to seeing the >     > construction site metaphor associated with programming tools, >     but it's >     > only because of repetition.  I'd like to see some better metaphor >     > altogether; it's a task without a physical-world equivalent, but who >     > knows how much we could come up with if we actually pounded at it >     > intentionally.  But I do think that of the construction items we've >     > brought up thus far, at least (claw) hammers have a distinctive >     visual >     > outline, and that's an improvement. >     > >     > Nate >     > >     > On 3/10/07, *Rodney Dawes* < <a href="mailto:dobey@novell.com">dobey@novell.com </a> >     <mailto:<a href="mailto:dobey@novell.com">dobey@novell.com</a>> >     > <mailto:<a href="mailto:dobey@novell.com">dobey@novell.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dobey@novell.com">dobey@novell.com </a>>>> wrote: >     > >     >     Perhaps it could use some touch-ups, sure. But I think the >     >     metaphor does >     >     in fact make sense. It is a category icon, not an tool, >     process, or >     >     product icon. All persons on a construction site, must wear >     hard hats. >     >     They don't all have to carry or use hammers, nails, >     screwdrivers, >     >     fishing wire, or many of the other things used in the >     construction >     >     of a >     >     building. >     > >     >     Perhaps a toolbox would be a somewhat better metaphor though. >     >     Given that >     >     it contains tools for building software. >     > >     >     -- dobey >     > >     > >     >     On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:47 -0600, Nathan Willis wrote: >     >     > As long as we're talking about coding metaphors, I have to >     give my >     >     > thumbs-down to the yellow hard hat metaphor -- it, too, is >     entirely >     >     > indistinct at small sizes, and even at larger sizes it >     lacks the >     >     > "distinct shape" Rodney mentioned, as well as detail and >     >     contrast.  Is >     >     > it a lemon? A tennis ball?  A gumdrop?  And even if it is >     >     recognized >     >     > eventually as a hard hat, it doesn't communicate.  Hard >     hats are >     >     > safety gear, not tools, not process, not product.  At the very >     >     least, >     >     > if you are going with the "construction work" metaphor, a >     hammer is >     >     > more visually distinctive and more appropriate. >     >     > >     >     > Just wanted to get that off my chest. >     >     > >     >     > Nate >     > >     > >     _______________________________________________ >     Tango-artists mailing list >     <a href="mailto:Tango-artists@lists.freedesktop.org">Tango-artists@lists.freedesktop.org</a> >     <mailto:<a href="mailto:Tango-artists@lists.freedesktop.org"> Tango-artists@lists.freedesktop.org</a>> >     <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/tango-artists">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/tango-artists</a> >     <<a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/tango-artists"> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/tango-artists</a>> > > > > > -- > nathan.p.willis > <a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com</a> <mailto: <a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com</a>> > aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis > <a href="http://blog.glyphography.com">blog.glyphography.com</a> <<a href="http://blog.glyphography.com"> http://blog.glyphography.com</a>> > <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/willis">flickr.com/photos/willis</a> <<a href="http://flickr.com/photos/willis">http://flickr.com/photos/willis</a>> </blockquote> </div> -- nathan.p.willis <a href="mailto:nwillis@glyphography.com">nwillis@glyphography.com</a> aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis <a href="http://blog.glyphography.com">blog.glyphography.com</a> <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/willis">flickr.com/photos/willis</a>