BBF RFC 18: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Eric's discussion is important. I like all the symbols accept the "T" for termination sites. I prefer the hexagon. His point of selecting symbols that are easy to draw is valid and will definitely be incorporated into BOGL. - Cesar | *Eric's discussion is important. I like all the symbols accept the "T" for termination sites. I prefer the hexagon. His point of selecting symbols that are easy to draw is valid and will definitely be incorporated into BOGL. - Cesar | ||
*In general I like | *In general I like what has been proposed in RFC 18. In particular I like the idea of illustrating both standard tiles (for computer software, documents, etc) as well as a hand drawn guideline (for meetings, whiteboards, etc). Personally I am more interested what the shapes should be as opposed to collections of their physical realizations (e.g. jpeg, svg files). However this may be useful as well. I can commit to using whatever symbols are decided upon this summer for the new Clotho visualization environment I am creating. It would be good to get this to the UW folks to use with Tinkercell as well which has a very icon based design environment. | ||
Something else to think about is talking about issues like: | Something else to think about is talking about issues like: | ||
#Input and output composition rules for icons | #Input and output composition rules for icons (i.e. how to hook these together) | ||
#The convention for interpreting a diagram made from these parts (e.g. left to right) | #The convention for interpreting a diagram made from these parts (e.g. left to right) | ||
#Standard orientation for the icons (e.g. proper rotation an icon) | |||
#Add an icon to encapsulate more than one icon (e.g. a black box) | |||
Just some thoughts.... | |||
-Douglas Densmore, UC Berkeley - http://biocad-server.eecs.berkeley.edu/wiki | |||
Revision as of 16:46, 23 March 2009
- Eric's discussion is important. I like all the symbols accept the "T" for termination sites. I prefer the hexagon. His point of selecting symbols that are easy to draw is valid and will definitely be incorporated into BOGL. - Cesar
- In general I like what has been proposed in RFC 18. In particular I like the idea of illustrating both standard tiles (for computer software, documents, etc) as well as a hand drawn guideline (for meetings, whiteboards, etc). Personally I am more interested what the shapes should be as opposed to collections of their physical realizations (e.g. jpeg, svg files). However this may be useful as well. I can commit to using whatever symbols are decided upon this summer for the new Clotho visualization environment I am creating. It would be good to get this to the UW folks to use with Tinkercell as well which has a very icon based design environment.
Something else to think about is talking about issues like:
- Input and output composition rules for icons (i.e. how to hook these together)
- The convention for interpreting a diagram made from these parts (e.g. left to right)
- Standard orientation for the icons (e.g. proper rotation an icon)
- Add an icon to encapsulate more than one icon (e.g. a black box)
Just some thoughts....
-Douglas Densmore, UC Berkeley - http://biocad-server.eecs.berkeley.edu/wiki
