[cap-talk] Firefox and identifiability, small steps or large
iang at systemics.com
Thu Feb 10 15:13:37 EST 2005
>>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 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
News and views on what matters in finance+crypto:
More information about the cap-talk