EA://INTEL — Iconicity: Not Self-Evident in Communication

How intuitive are symbols? Can we design shapes that speak for themselves? This idea, known as iconicity, has long intrigued us. But our journey with Universal Language taught us otherwise.

In our quest to create a geometric notation universally comprehensible without instruction, we initially believed iconic symbols would be self-evidently readable. We thought that shape should resemble its meaning. However, this assumption was challenged when we subjected it to rigorous testing. The results were humbling: even professionally designed safety pictograms scored only 45% comprehension without training.

This failure, logged as F-012 in our repository, was a crucial lesson. Iconicity alone doesn’t bootstrap comprehension. It’s not that iconic symbols are useless; they’re just one piece of the puzzle. We now understand that learnability and comprehension testing are core deliverables, not afterthoughts.

So, what does this mean for Universal Language? It means we’re refining our approach, making learnability a priority. But it also underscores why we record failures openly: to improve and invite scrutiny. After all, symmetric scrutiny is the lifeblood of honest research.

QUESTION: How might we better measure and enhance the learnability of geometric symbols in Universal Language?