Posted by dorayme on 01/18/06 22:28

In article <diors1586gu7hqjs0attj79djltm1fs5gu@4ax.com>,
David Segall <david@segall.net> wrote:

> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, David Segall wrote:
> >
> >> Dylan Parry <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Pondering the eternal question of "Hobnobs or Rich Tea?", David Segall
> >> >finally proclaimed:
> >> >
> >> >> I have the usual flags to denote various languages
> >> >
> >> >Stop right there. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/flags.html
> >>
> >> Your argument (I assume you agree) is basically "Don't use icons
> >> because they may be misunderstood and/or offend someone".
> >
> >Then you haven't read the article properly.
> Can you suggest a way of reading the article "properly" without
> agreeing with it?
> >

Now lets not be like that... I had a glance at my favourite
human's article and I got the impression his arguments were at
least worth taking seriously. To take up your previous point, one
of his arguments was that flags were easily misunderstood or
mismatched in relation to the language wanted. You can disagree
with this, but you need to think about it. Your summing up of his
article ("Don't use icons because they may be misunderstood
and/or offend someone") does not inspire confidence you have.
This does not mean you are wrong about using flags.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]