[cap-talk] Firefox and identifiability, small steps or large

[marcs]

> A clarification: logos, not icons.
> 
> I gather that CapDesk (? I can't recall the
> name) has experimented with icons.  I
> agree that icons wouldn't add much over
> words or phrases.
> 
> By logos, I mean a graphical image selected
> by the user among a list of graphics.  In
> principle, it could be any logo found on the
> site, or it could be a picture dragged from
> the user's photobook.

I'm still not spotting the difference between my usage of the term "icon"
and your usage of the term "logo". In the current embodiment of CapDesk,
they get shrunk to 32x32, perhaps that is the issue. Indeed, the term "icon"
does, I guess, imply 32x32 to many people.

I am happy to use the term "logo" henceforth. Indeed, I am eager to use the
term "logo" henceforth. It is actually more correct, because the point is,
it is a visually distinctive graphic representing a unique id, and it may be
any size, the size chosen to fit the context.

--marcs