3 ms·

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 airpla

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).
anonymous 14y ago
The Chinese writing system is an exhaustive set of pictograms each depicting a single well-defined language element and having just one unambiguous official reading. They have been developed and simplified (made into icons) over thousands of years, including a recent reform that made them even easier to read and write. So if you're right, nobody would ever need to learn how to read them or what their meaning is.
- akavi 14y ago
  You are clearly not literate in Chinese. There is very little "iconic" about Chinese characters, with the exception of a select few ("Pictograms" is a gross mischaracterization). No attempt was made during their (thousand-year long) formulation (and certainly none during the reform), to design them so that their meaning was readily apparent from their form (Rather, most consist of a semantic classifier loosely classifying them based on meaning, and a "phonetic" component loosely hinting at their pronunciation). Thus, their lack of readily perceivable meaning has little bearing on the possibility of intentionally designed icons having readily perceivable meaning. (Though not directly related to my point, I also must point out your assertion "each depicting a single, well-defined language element and having just one unambiguous, official reading" is false. One example (of thousands): 行, pronounced as any one of [xíng, háng, xìng, hàng, héng] and meaning any one of ["go", "travel/walk", "row", "action", "trade/profession", "seniority", "competent", "makeshift"])

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).

anonymous 14y ago

The Chinese writing system is an exhaustive set of pictograms each depicting a single well-defined language element and having just one unambiguous official reading. They have been developed and simplified (made into icons) over thousands of years, including a recent reform that made them even easier to read and write. So if you're right, nobody would ever need to learn how to read them or what their meaning is.

akavi 14y ago
You are clearly not literate in Chinese. There is very little "iconic" about Chinese characters, with the exception of a select few ("Pictograms" is a gross mischaracterization). No attempt was made during their (thousand-year long) formulation (and certainly none during the reform), to design them so that their meaning was readily apparent from their form (Rather, most consist of a semantic classifier loosely classifying them based on meaning, and a "phonetic" component loosely hinting at their pronunciation). Thus, their lack of readily perceivable meaning has little bearing on the possibility of intentionally designed icons having readily perceivable meaning. (Though not directly related to my point, I also must point out your assertion "each depicting a single, well-defined language element and having just one unambiguous, official reading" is false. One example (of thousands): 行, pronounced as any one of [xíng, háng, xìng, hàng, héng] and meaning any one of ["go", "travel/walk", "row", "action", "trade/profession", "seniority", "competent", "makeshift"])