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

[Ian G]

marcs wrote:

>>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.
>  
>

Ah!  So when you say icon, you mean, a logo
that got shrunk down to icon size so it could
fit into some form factor?

I see.

>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.
>  
>

Yes.  Ok, so excuse the repetition, but what
are the published references for the CapDesk
work?

iang

-- 
News and views on what matters in finance+crypto:
        http://financialcryptography.com/