5 ms·

My main problem with icon design is that I see people spend tons of time on their look and feel, and then they fail to label them, either due of lack of UX expe

by lhorie 14y ago

My main problem with icon design is that I see people spend tons of time on their look and feel, and then they fail to label them, either due of lack of UX experience or arrogance (or both).

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
The whole point of the pictogram ("icon") is to communicate what the label would, but more succinctly.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  In an idealized world, and on a device of sufficiently low complexity, sure. But when you have multiple services that all cover the same basic thing, your icon needs to transcend its very basic function. Yelp, for example, needs to look different than Urbanspoon. Twitter needs to be distinct from Facebook. Flickr separate from Photobucket. The notion that the icon should be immediately communicative of the app's purpose is a nice one that just doesn't scale. Sure, you see envelope you think email, you see telephone you see phone. What happens when you see a TV? Is that your HBO app? Your ABC app? Hulu? Any app of sufficient complexity would be better represented via branding rather than a pictograph of its basic function.
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    I was talking about pictograms replacing labels. You're talking about application icons, which are essentially branding. I don't get why you're mixing the two matters.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      Ah I see - I misunderstood your post then. FWIW, I still disagree with pictograms replacing labels. I'm a fan of the idea conceptually, but in every instance I've seen it done it simply hasn't been intuitive enough for me to consider it a working solution. Maybe someday someone will get it right - but I'm not holding my breath. Purely pictographic iconography is like the cold fusion of UI design. Take Win8 for example, which I've been using for the past two weeks - the UI is very deliberately minimalist, and drops almost all labels from icons. This has proven to be very frustrating. Some buttons are very self-evident and work - the back button in Metro apps, the WiFi icon, etc, have fairly self-evident functions. Others (and there are many) are just terribly confusing, especially for novice users. In the Email app the "send" icon is completely non-obvious, and it's confusing in a situation that disallows trial and error (you just spent 10 minutes typing an email, do you really want to play a game of "wonder what this does"?) So there are a tiny subset of functions where there exists a universal enough, and popular enough icon that the functionality would be recognizable. Apps, however, go well beyond the dead obvious and implement complex functionality that cannot be easily summarized in a pictograph - especially in a cross-cultural and cross-language way. I just don't see this working, though I'm personally interested in seeing this pan out.
      - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
        > FWIW, I still disagree with pictograms replacing labels. I'm a fan of the idea conceptually, but in every instance I've seen it done it simply hasn't been intuitive enough for me to consider it a working solution. It is a working solution. Pictograms are used in place of labels everyday, in large scale. Look no further than all traffic signs in the planet earth for an example. For instance, the "back button" is obvious for you because you understand the metaphor. It isn't so clear for someone used to right-to-left scripts, like arabic. On the other hand, the "send email" action on that particular software you mention has a confusing icon because there's no clear metaphor for what "sending an email" should look like - it's a relatively new idea and no one agreed on a symbol for it, therefore you don't know what to expect. This is just lack of vision from whoever designed this interface, not a problem with pictograms. You only use pictograms when you can transmit an idea more concisely. If the most concise explanation you have is a label, then a label it should be.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kirillzubovsky 14y ago
Actually, a good icon doesn't need a label. If it is properly designed, it would be intuitive enough to explain to the user its purpose. For example, an airplane taking off, that is an icon that clearly shows departures at the airport. Trash can, as we are all familiar with it now, is an obvious way to throw something away ...etc. You can have labels, where possible, if you're using icons, chances are you are already tight on space.
- lhorie 14y ago
  That is assuming the user is familiar with both the application and the skeuomorph you're using. For example: My android phone has a loupe icon in the corner of the screen. It's arguably an universally well known skeuomorph. And yet, what does it do? Zoom? Search? Search what? My apps? The web?
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    I don't think anyone is expected to automatically understand what the icon does when they see it for the first time. Rather, with good icon design the number of times they tap it before they internalize what it does is minimized.
- joe_the_user 14y ago
  In the best of all possible worlds, icons don't need labeling. In the real world, a large portion do. Which brings-up the question of "why do we need icons at all?". And one could argue that often we don't. For all its flaws, Microsoft Metro has the merit of realizing that icons often don't really have the communicativeness that many designers imagine. Sometimes a word is worth a dozen very sketchy pictures too, or at least is more specific than any given picture.
  - ebzlo 14y ago
    On the contrary, I think icons have become indicative of actionable text or a button. Just today there was an article on HN that criticized Windows 8 of being too minimalistic-- it was hard to understand at first glance what was merely a label versus an actual button. And in the real world, icons, symbols, or colors help users immediately understand how to use something (while driving, I would stop at a red octagon even if it didn't explicitly say STOP).
xentronium 14y ago
Yes, thousand times yes! Every time I had to use gmail (after their redesign and before I found a setting to use text labels instead of icons on buttons) was an exercise in frustration. All-gray small icons might look good on mockups but they are terrible and not informative in real life usage.

by lhorie 14y ago

My main problem with icon design is that I see people spend tons of time on their look and feel, and then they fail to label them, either due of lack of UX experience or arrogance (or both).

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

The whole point of the pictogram ("icon") is to communicate what the label would, but more succinctly.

potatolicious 14y ago
In an idealized world, and on a device of sufficiently low complexity, sure. But when you have multiple services that all cover the same basic thing, your icon needs to transcend its very basic function. Yelp, for example, needs to look different than Urbanspoon. Twitter needs to be distinct from Facebook. Flickr separate from Photobucket. The notion that the icon should be immediately communicative of the app's purpose is a nice one that just doesn't scale. Sure, you see envelope you think email, you see telephone you see phone. What happens when you see a TV? Is that your HBO app? Your ABC app? Hulu? Any app of sufficient complexity would be better represented via branding rather than a pictograph of its basic function.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  I was talking about pictograms replacing labels. You're talking about application icons, which are essentially branding. I don't get why you're mixing the two matters.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Ah I see - I misunderstood your post then. FWIW, I still disagree with pictograms replacing labels. I'm a fan of the idea conceptually, but in every instance I've seen it done it simply hasn't been intuitive enough for me to consider it a working solution. Maybe someday someone will get it right - but I'm not holding my breath. Purely pictographic iconography is like the cold fusion of UI design. Take Win8 for example, which I've been using for the past two weeks - the UI is very deliberately minimalist, and drops almost all labels from icons. This has proven to be very frustrating. Some buttons are very self-evident and work - the back button in Metro apps, the WiFi icon, etc, have fairly self-evident functions. Others (and there are many) are just terribly confusing, especially for novice users. In the Email app the "send" icon is completely non-obvious, and it's confusing in a situation that disallows trial and error (you just spent 10 minutes typing an email, do you really want to play a game of "wonder what this does"?) So there are a tiny subset of functions where there exists a universal enough, and popular enough icon that the functionality would be recognizable. Apps, however, go well beyond the dead obvious and implement complex functionality that cannot be easily summarized in a pictograph - especially in a cross-cultural and cross-language way. I just don't see this working, though I'm personally interested in seeing this pan out.
    - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
      > FWIW, I still disagree with pictograms replacing labels. I'm a fan of the idea conceptually, but in every instance I've seen it done it simply hasn't been intuitive enough for me to consider it a working solution. It is a working solution. Pictograms are used in place of labels everyday, in large scale. Look no further than all traffic signs in the planet earth for an example. For instance, the "back button" is obvious for you because you understand the metaphor. It isn't so clear for someone used to right-to-left scripts, like arabic. On the other hand, the "send email" action on that particular software you mention has a confusing icon because there's no clear metaphor for what "sending an email" should look like - it's a relatively new idea and no one agreed on a symbol for it, therefore you don't know what to expect. This is just lack of vision from whoever designed this interface, not a problem with pictograms. You only use pictograms when you can transmit an idea more concisely. If the most concise explanation you have is a label, then a label it should be.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kirillzubovsky 14y ago

Actually, a good icon doesn't need a label. If it is properly designed, it would be intuitive enough to explain to the user its purpose. For example, an airplane taking off, that is an icon that clearly shows departures at the airport. Trash can, as we are all familiar with it now, is an obvious way to throw something away ...etc. You can have labels, where possible, if you're using icons, chances are you are already tight on space.

lhorie 14y ago
That is assuming the user is familiar with both the application and the skeuomorph you're using. For example: My android phone has a loupe icon in the corner of the screen. It's arguably an universally well known skeuomorph. And yet, what does it do? Zoom? Search? Search what? My apps? The web?
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  I don't think anyone is expected to automatically understand what the icon does when they see it for the first time. Rather, with good icon design the number of times they tap it before they internalize what it does is minimized.
joe_the_user 14y ago
In the best of all possible worlds, icons don't need labeling. In the real world, a large portion do. Which brings-up the question of "why do we need icons at all?". And one could argue that often we don't. For all its flaws, Microsoft Metro has the merit of realizing that icons often don't really have the communicativeness that many designers imagine. Sometimes a word is worth a dozen very sketchy pictures too, or at least is more specific than any given picture.
- ebzlo 14y ago
  On the contrary, I think icons have become indicative of actionable text or a button. Just today there was an article on HN that criticized Windows 8 of being too minimalistic-- it was hard to understand at first glance what was merely a label versus an actual button. And in the real world, icons, symbols, or colors help users immediately understand how to use something (while driving, I would stop at a red octagon even if it didn't explicitly say STOP).

xentronium 14y ago

Yes, thousand times yes! Every time I had to use gmail (after their redesign and before I found a setting to use text labels instead of icons on buttons) was an exercise in frustration. All-gray small icons might look good on mockups but they are terrible and not informative in real life usage.