Note that the definition line does not wrap.
Good point. It looks to be part of a new font (that I really like actually). The sign for equals (or how you call it in English) is not the clearest one.
The sign for equals (or how you call it in English)
Your English is correct.
I'm not seeing that panel. Where are you getting it from?
Sean would know for sure, but I believe it's a shorthand for "described as" (compare with "temple ≈ house" higher in your screenshot).
This example does show a rather unfortunate "natural" reading of the symbol, though.
Sean would know for sure, but I believe it's a shorthand for "described as" (compare with "temple ≈ house" higher in your screenshot). This example does show a rather unfortunate "natural" reading of the symbol, though.
Found this in Wikipdedia as the result of a search for "approximate sign" (in an article called "Equals sign"):
Symbols used to denote items that are approximately equal are "wavy" equals signs.
The one with which I'm most familiar as an approximate sign is this one: ≅ (Unicode 2245); but I've seen that first one (also in MJ's example) also used that way. Searching there for "described as" sign produced 0 results.
Maybe you'd want to replace it with something that would also be simple but still unique. Something that conveys some of the meaning, yet doesn't confuse, and perhaps elicits a question that could be found in a set of symbols somewhere, or (better yet) explains itself on hover. When I tried to search for :=: (colon, equals sign, colon [no spaces]) I got zero results in Wikipedia, and even Google. Not sure if this particular solution would be "pretty" enough with the font you're using, but something like that might work.
We chose this "equivalence" symbol where we wanted to convey "X understood as Y", or "expressed as", or "conceptualized as". Unfortunately all that verbiage would take quite a bit of space on a drop-down menu, and there are hundreds of senses like this. We aren't saying "approximately equal to". The "temple ≈ house" example is clearer: the sense is primarily that of a temple as the place where a deity is worshiped, but conceptualized using the typical word for "house", which is important semantic information.
An explanation on hover would be nice, though i'm not sure if it's technically possible. I recognize that introducing a new symbol will raise some questions.
I recognize that introducing a new symbol will raise some questions.
I'm not really sure if this will cause a lot of genuine problems, but the symbol isn't new. It's used in both math and symbolic logic (at least), and has a specific meaning for those familiar with those disciplines. In the example MJ gives of Son being approximately equal to "Word of God" some might assume you are asserting a theological position by not using the equals sign.
As I said, I'm not sure this will cause genuine problems, but it might (temporarily) confuse those with some familiarity with the more standard uses of the symbol.
it might (temporarily) confuse those with some familiarity with the more standard uses of the symbol.
Do you have a suggestion for a better symbol? We thought about arrows and some others, and even short phrases, but didn't get anywhere. We're still open to ideas, though.
it might (temporarily) confuse those with some familiarity with the more standard uses of the symbol. Do you have a suggestion for a better symbol? We thought about arrows and some others, and even short phrases, but didn't get anywhere. We're still open to ideas, though.
Since there isn't a symbol that is generally accepted for the idea you want to convey, anything you do is likely to require explanation.
As I see it the solutions are to get an explanation of the current symbol on hover, to publish a list of symbols used (which probably won't be read), or to use a symbol that is not widely recognized and infuse it with meaning somehow. Two that I have thought of so far is the colon, equals sign, colon (:=:) above or this one <=>. In those cases it would look something like this: Temple :=: house or Temple <=> house. Searching for either symbol on Google produces 0 results, so it's not a symbol that seems to be used often (at least).
For me the symbol <=> would mean that the two terms are mutually related somehow. In math this symbol <=> means "material equivalence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbols) which could work well. Actually, it looks like there is a single character (⇔) that represents that on the Wikipedia page I just cited, and would then be a better choice than :=: (IMHO).
There are those who specialize in symbols who might be able to give some better suggestions.
As I see it the solutions are to get an explanation of the current symbol on hover
Yes, that would be the best. We have it in Logos in some cases.
Actually, it looks like there is a single character (⇔) that represents that on the Wikipedia page I just cited, and would then be a better choice than :=: (IMHO
I agree. Also possible might be <-> or <-->.
Once you are sure that the symbol is not an 'artistic' = then the meaning is fairly clear.
I'd go with ≡ or ⇔or ↔ All of them are standard notation for equivalence. Using a symbol but changing it's meaning (the current situation) makes an unnecessary user disconnect - either in Logos or, for students as the progress in math or logic.
The mouse-over idea is very nice especially for those unfamiliar with whatever notation you go with.
I agree with Martha. The current symbol means "approximately equal to" whereas either of the two symbols she suggests means "equivalent to".
I'm going to push on this and bluntly state that using a symbol that means "approximately" to say something else is a mistake.
The ⇔ suggested by Richard is more closely aligned to indicate representation and would be recognized as a relationship; even if that relationship needed some study to define.
The ⇔ suggested by Richard is more closely aligned to indicate representation and would be recognized as a relationship
This would be my first choice although I know some fonts don't contain it. But I agree that it is not acceptable to abuse a symbol when there are multiple broadly known symbols that are much closer in meaning.
The ⇔ suggested by Richard is more closely aligned to indicate representation and would be recognized as a relationship This would be my first choice although I know some fonts don't contain it. But I agree that it is not acceptable to abuse a symbol when there are multiple broadly known symbols that are much closer in meaning.
After seeing it in action I agree that another symbol is needed!
The ⇔ suggested by Richard is more closely aligned to indicate representation and would be recognized as a relationship This would be my first choice although I know some fonts don't contain it.
This would be my first choice although I know some fonts don't contain it.
We'll be standardising on ⇔ and will be adding it to our UI font. (Font fallback should work in the meantime until that happens, as long as you have another font that contains it, such as Cambria Math, installed.)
Thanks for all the feedback!
