5 ms·
These are interesting but in my opinion (please take it with a pinch of salt, I am no expert) touch icons needn't have the 'hand' to indicate that they're touch
by monsterix 13y ago
These are interesting but in my opinion (please take it with a pinch of salt, I am no expert) touch icons needn't have the 'hand' to indicate that they're touch. Hand feels redundant and heavy.
For example, the double-finger-double-tap a coalesced double-ring is good enough, there is no need of hand on the icon. Similarly for triple-tap three rings coalesced together is enough, drop the hand.
'Press and hold' could be done with the icon you've for 'hold timer' -- without the hand of course. For left, right, up and down swipes something else is required. Hand is terrible while arrows alone won't cut it. We also need icons to suggest typing(keyboard) mode or doodling(free hand) mode on touch screens.
- ronaldx 13y agoIf you know that a gesture is expected, the hand is not necessary. However, it's unlikely that people would recognise they are expected to gesture without some context - the clearest way to indicate the correct context is with the hand. The hand is providing a necessary function here - although I agree it might be a bit heavy and that it will be less necessary once you've established the context.
- bkm 13y agoAn alternative to the hand would be a more distinctive finger (by adding a fingernail?)
- monsterix 13y agoOr a mobile pictogram, smaller than the gesture itself.
- fallinghawks 13y agoThe press-and-hold is nearly indistinguishable from single tap. You could not use it by itself. The one with the clock says more. The swipe-ups should have the hand off to one side so the arrows can be seen more clearly. IMO most of these would be better with just a finger or fingers.