4 ms·

That's partially why I like the idea (if not the implementation, apparently) of Mr. Yuck and his friend that I just learned about, Mr. Ouch [0]. To me, it look

That's partially why I like the idea (if not the implementation, apparently) of Mr. Yuck and his friend that I just learned about, Mr. Ouch [0]. To me, it looks like he gets the point across pretty well-- come near here and die. There's no need for left-to-right reading and the cause and effect are in one clear image. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Ouch]

fermienrico 9y ago
The semiology of such a graphic, Mr. Ouch symbol, may be adequate, but its utility and practicality is severely lacking. Imagine if you were to put instructions together to be able to reproduce Mr. Ouch; or, imagine if you were a construction worker trying to follow instructions to mark this logo on a hazardous surface -- Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an optimal graphic symbol. Mr. Ouch fails at this. Furthermore, rather subjectively, Mr. Ouch does not convey sophistication nor a professional aesthetic -- it looks like someone made this up using Clipart, and it does not convey a sense of seriousness and an authoritative tone.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an optimal graphic symbol. The primary goal is to communicate something. Simplicity and reproducibility are always secondary to this - and it's difficult to have something simple and reproducible that clearly communicates danger.
  - fermienrico 9y ago
    There are lots of options to communicate clearly. To be able to communicate clear and have simplicity/reproducibility is what makes a good graphic symbol. Further reading: https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQgAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQ...
abecedarius 9y ago
Waste dumps are a bigger semantic problem because you won't die or even feel anything soon. Even Chernobyl seems like a wildlife preserve already. The warning had better be clear it's about a long-term dread to have any chance of being heeded.

fermienrico 9y ago

The semiology of such a graphic, Mr. Ouch symbol, may be adequate, but its utility and practicality is severely lacking. Imagine if you were to put instructions together to be able to reproduce Mr. Ouch; or, imagine if you were a construction worker trying to follow instructions to mark this logo on a hazardous surface -- Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an optimal graphic symbol. Mr. Ouch fails at this. Furthermore, rather subjectively, Mr. Ouch does not convey sophistication nor a professional aesthetic -- it looks like someone made this up using Clipart, and it does not convey a sense of seriousness and an authoritative tone.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
> Simplicity and reproducibility are the hallmarks of an optimal graphic symbol. The primary goal is to communicate something. Simplicity and reproducibility are always secondary to this - and it's difficult to have something simple and reproducible that clearly communicates danger.
- fermienrico 9y ago
  There are lots of options to communicate clearly. To be able to communicate clear and have simplicity/reproducibility is what makes a good graphic symbol. Further reading: https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQgAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/Semiology.html?id=kZXCQ...

abecedarius 9y ago

Waste dumps are a bigger semantic problem because you won't die or even feel anything soon. Even Chernobyl seems like a wildlife preserve already. The warning had better be clear it's about a long-term dread to have any chance of being heeded.