4 ms·

Oops, the HN audience really likes icons.

inglor_cz 5y ago
"Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean." Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? "So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards." Backward and forward with respect to what? Writing language down in an alphabet is more precise, but only other speakers of the same languge will be able to communicate with you. Symbolic writing is less precise, but more intelligible to people who do not speak your language. Would China hold together if they didn't have a common symbolic writing system? The languages (or dialects) spoken in the country are very different from one another.
- scim-knox-twox 5y ago
  > Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? But that's the problem. You don't know what the icon for Wi-Fi means, until you do.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Same with the alphabet. Someone has to teach you what A means and how is it pronounced. That is quite a normal task in human civilization, we do not come out of the womb pre-programmed to be literate.
    - 6510 5y ago
      I told someone who uses a phone most hours of the day for decades to click the hamburger menu. "What?" I said the 3 lines at the top in the corner. "Oh wtf? I never knew there was a menu there." In marketing the goal is to, every step of the way, not lose customers. Basically: You want to sell stuff or attempt to teach stuff? If a simple hamburger already is < 100% everything else must be terrible. More than 0% wont be able to see the little house as a link to the front page while something like "home" would work for an English audience 100% of the time.
      - graycat 5y ago
        And for audiences who don't know English, "home" can be translated to their language.
- graycat 5y ago
  Recently I saw a claim that the most difficult language in the world to learn was Mandarin and the reason was the written version is all icons.
axiomsEnd 5y ago
But we never took that step forward fully. We are constantly using icons in real life (trafic signs is one example) when we want to communicate small dose of information, to everyone, in short amount of time. That's why we use icons - changing taskbar into list of words works only until there is enough space, and even then is more annoying then just finding instantly recognizable picture.
- graycat 5y ago
  The OP was talking about hundreds or thousands of icons -- tough to have an easy way to have meanings for all of those. Also the OP showed some icons -- it was not at all obvious what the meanings were. Right, for an icon, commonly, hovering the mouse over the icon causes the display of a word or two or so of English that defines the icon. So, I'm suggesting, just use the word or two of English instead of the icon.
laumars 5y ago
> 1. Can't pronounce them, In the case of Unicode, you can use the code name > 2. type them in text, In the case of Unicode, you have the code point > 3. send them in text email, Same as #2 > 4. spell them, Same as #1 (though why you'd want to spell a glyph is beyond me) > 5. sort them, Same as #2 > 6. look them up in a dictionary Databases for Unicode and icons already exist > 7. search on them. Same as #6 > 8. Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean. Here is the clincher for why icons have become so widespread: they're actually easier for international audiences to determine what they mean because they illustrate an action rather than describing that action in a specific language. They're also easier to parse for anyone with reading difficulties like dyslexia. There's a reason traffic signs employ iconography. It's actually easier for the lowest common denominator to read and understand. Plus they have a fantastic benefit of conveying information concisely. Another example of that latter point if the iconography on media players (the pause, play, et al buttons). > At my Web site, I have no icons and, instead, for links use words typed using the Roman alphabet, words in English, words that have meanings in standard dictionaries, can be spelled, typed, etc. As with most things, it depends largely on your audience/use cases. Your site might not benefit from them but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit. > So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards. People who cannot read English might disagree with you there ;)
- graycat 5y ago
  The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons. For people who don't know English, between an undefined icon and an English word they don't know, which is easier to decode, get defined? The English word can be defined in a dictionary and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Nothing similar is available for icons.
  - laumars 5y ago
    > The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons. I saw. But the point you made was far more generalised so I gave examples of where icons can have that feature. > The English word can be defined in a dictionary Which is still no use if you cannot read English > and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Automated translations are usually terrible. They’re just about passable for larger volumes of text because you can figure out what the article is generally about. But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation > Nothing similar is available for icons. You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way. Sure shit icons do exist but then so do shit labels for actions that don’t describe the action well. But you cannot form an argument where you’re comparing the worst of icons against the best of written labels. That’s simply not a fair basis for an argument. You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely. And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties. In fact you seem only focused on web site design while making a sweeping statement that all icons are bad. Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design. Or on why road signs are the way they are. Or even just an article on why the media glyphs were invented. You’re quoting your own opinion but here but there’s been decades of research into this very topic.

"Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean." Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? "So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards." Backward and forward with respect to what? Writing language down in an alphabet is more precise, but only other speakers of the same languge will be able to communicate with you. Symbolic writing is less precise, but more intelligible to people who do not speak your language. Would China hold together if they didn't have a common symbolic writing system? The languages (or dialects) spoken in the country are very different from one another.

scim-knox-twox 5y ago
> Except for wide practice? How many people who work with mobile phones cannot really determine what the icon for Wi-Fi means? But that's the problem. You don't know what the icon for Wi-Fi means, until you do.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Same with the alphabet. Someone has to teach you what A means and how is it pronounced. That is quite a normal task in human civilization, we do not come out of the womb pre-programmed to be literate.
  - 6510 5y ago
    I told someone who uses a phone most hours of the day for decades to click the hamburger menu. "What?" I said the 3 lines at the top in the corner. "Oh wtf? I never knew there was a menu there." In marketing the goal is to, every step of the way, not lose customers. Basically: You want to sell stuff or attempt to teach stuff? If a simple hamburger already is < 100% everything else must be terrible. More than 0% wont be able to see the little house as a link to the front page while something like "home" would work for an English audience 100% of the time.
    - graycat 5y ago
      And for audiences who don't know English, "home" can be translated to their language.
graycat 5y ago
Recently I saw a claim that the most difficult language in the world to learn was Mandarin and the reason was the written version is all icons.

axiomsEnd 5y ago

But we never took that step forward fully. We are constantly using icons in real life (trafic signs is one example) when we want to communicate small dose of information, to everyone, in short amount of time. That's why we use icons - changing taskbar into list of words works only until there is enough space, and even then is more annoying then just finding instantly recognizable picture.

graycat 5y ago
The OP was talking about hundreds or thousands of icons -- tough to have an easy way to have meanings for all of those. Also the OP showed some icons -- it was not at all obvious what the meanings were. Right, for an icon, commonly, hovering the mouse over the icon causes the display of a word or two or so of English that defines the icon. So, I'm suggesting, just use the word or two of English instead of the icon.

laumars 5y ago

> 1. Can't pronounce them, In the case of Unicode, you can use the code name > 2. type them in text, In the case of Unicode, you have the code point > 3. send them in text email, Same as #2 > 4. spell them, Same as #1 (though why you'd want to spell a glyph is beyond me) > 5. sort them, Same as #2 > 6. look them up in a dictionary Databases for Unicode and icons already exist > 7. search on them. Same as #6 > 8. Have no reasonable and reliable way to determine what they mean. Here is the clincher for why icons have become so widespread: they're actually easier for international audiences to determine what they mean because they illustrate an action rather than describing that action in a specific language. They're also easier to parse for anyone with reading difficulties like dyslexia. There's a reason traffic signs employ iconography. It's actually easier for the lowest common denominator to read and understand. Plus they have a fantastic benefit of conveying information concisely. Another example of that latter point if the iconography on media players (the pause, play, et al buttons). > At my Web site, I have no icons and, instead, for links use words typed using the Roman alphabet, words in English, words that have meanings in standard dictionaries, can be spelled, typed, etc. As with most things, it depends largely on your audience/use cases. Your site might not benefit from them but that doesn't mean there isn't a benefit. > So, just suggesting that the Roman alphabet was a step forward from icons and returning to icons is a step backwards. People who cannot read English might disagree with you there ;)

graycat 5y ago
The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons. For people who don't know English, between an undefined icon and an English word they don't know, which is easier to decode, get defined? The English word can be defined in a dictionary and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Nothing similar is available for icons.
- laumars 5y ago
  > The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons. I saw. But the point you made was far more generalised so I gave examples of where icons can have that feature. > The English word can be defined in a dictionary Which is still no use if you cannot read English > and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet. Automated translations are usually terrible. They’re just about passable for larger volumes of text because you can figure out what the article is generally about. But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation > Nothing similar is available for icons. You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way. Sure shit icons do exist but then so do shit labels for actions that don’t describe the action well. But you cannot form an argument where you’re comparing the worst of icons against the best of written labels. That’s simply not a fair basis for an argument. You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely. And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties. In fact you seem only focused on web site design while making a sweeping statement that all icons are bad. Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design. Or on why road signs are the way they are. Or even just an article on why the media glyphs were invented. You’re quoting your own opinion but here but there’s been decades of research into this very topic.