Agree to a point - not all icons are intuitive or well designed. (1) Often well designed icons can bring a sense of understanding or convey function of a tool.

Agree to a point - not all icons are intuitive or well designed. (1) Often well designed icons can bring a sense of understanding or convey function of a tool. However many icons are invented/designed to convey an esoteric function that doesn’t exist in standard non-digital tools. In some cases a text description could be equally as useful but it might take up more room in an interface. Often a iconed toolbar creates a more intuitive interface for users whose focus is on creating images or manipulating complex data. Icons and a well thought out workspace differ from a CLE, but allow users with differing levels of understanding and experience to create useful documents and processes. Personally I think Autodesk is a company that profits primarily on user training for unintuitive software, they also seem to change their products to require relearning and sell certification. The point about Houdini, Max, and Solidworks needing deep training is ridiculous, a French horn only has 3 or 4 keys, so all players should be able to achieve proficiency easily. However in music, (and 3D modeling) deeper concepts exist to create meaningful and diverse compositions. (1) Icons are a recently modern idea - the 1964 Tokyo Olympics employed them to bridge language barriers. Today icons/pictographs are used in almost every interface and wayfinding (signage) device around the world. Skeuomorphic design is a good concept to help users understand general concepts. Advanced users who have a grasp of computing are more apt to interpret abstract icons and use them as time savers.