It looks like someone getting good at illustration. Older icons are far better illustrations. However icon design is not just about illustration, it's about clarity and affordances. Icons don't exist in isolation like an illustration, they exist alongside the rest of the UX and other app icons, and being recognisable is important.
All that to say, the sweet pot was likely somewhere in the middle of this timeline. The earliest icons aren't recognisable enough as they're too illustrative. The later icons aren't recognisable enough because they're too basic. The middle are pretty, clear from colour, clear from shape, well branded.
I spent half a year designing and creating 200+ icons for a custom geospatial mapping app. I really enjoyed the work but it was grueling and tedious, especially the design part. Too many people had too many different opinions on which symbols meant what, which styles clearly conveyed ideas without being too detailed, and many other things that kept wasting my time and causing a lot of rework and inconsistencies. It was literally just me doing the work, so I stopped trying to get consensus and took a few weeks to redesign the entire set and even used color science to inform my design decisions. I created the entire set without external input, then presented it. Sure there was some tweaking here and there, but I believe it turned about to be great and no one really complained in the end. The most important part was that end-users were happy. I used Inkscape and developed a set of scripts to automate the build and had everything in a very organized Git repo.
I agree with your conclusion that the sweet spot is in the middle, because I could easily explain to my mom "click the icon that has a pen and paper" and it would be very obvious. The current icon is completely ambiguous crap.
None of the Pages icons are recognisable because almost no one uses Pages. The word icon is just a blue W which is not any more illustrative than an orange pen.
One of my favorite series is Nathan Lowell's Solar Clipper... in In Ashes Born, there's an bit about creating a logo for the company...
He pointed to the far end of his studio. Two tiny patches of white—which were probably actually gray—lay in a single pool of light. One was a smudge of red and the other was a spiral of red. “Which one of those is your logo?” he asked.
“Neither,” Pip said.
“The smudge,” I said understanding where the kid was taking us.
“Right,” he said. “The smudge.”
“What?” Pip asked.
The kid held up the paper from the workbench. “Look, this is nice and all, but it’s too fussy. If you look at anybody else’s logo, it’s not fussy. It’s iconic. A crown with wings. A C in a circle. That’s yours,” he said to Pip. “All of them are simple shapes combined to form an unmistakable pattern.”
My own choice for a gavatar is similar - https://github.com/shagie (it's from a photo I took). While by itself its a neat bit, its also something that is easily recognizable as "that's Shagie's" when its projected on a screen on the other side of the room or if it's someone's full screen share and everyone's icons are shrunk down to smaller blurs - mine remains clearly distinct.
The goal of an icon is to be able to identify it quickly without having to read the associated text.
The inkwell and the two with the paper are artistic - but they aren't things that stand out quickly when you're trying to find them in the launchpad or on the sidebar.
Pages is orange. Numbers is green. iTunes is red. Keynote is blue.
For Microsoft, Word is blue, Excel is green, and Powerpoint is orange (and Outlook has an envelope like shape). The letter reinforces the choice, but that's more of a hint and reinforcement.
The shape and color is the important thing for quickly finding what you're looking for.
The office icons are rather subtle but do sorta illustrate what they do if you look carefully - the word icon is a list, the excel icon is a spreadsheet, and the powerpoint icon is a pie chart.
That you have to look closely is kinda crap lol. Whoever designed the icons was more obsessed with consistent branding instead of making icons that make sense.
Looking at the start menu, some MS icons are great. Paint, Notepad, Calculator are all fantastic.
Document, pen, orange, and name "Pages" is pretty excellent all round for recognisability in my opinion.
Over the years Word/Powerpoint/Excel have done similar things, they have their own colour, their own name/letter, and usually have had a descriptive graphic in the icon too, indicating a document, grid, or slide.
The current icons really aren't that good. Looking at apple specifically: The facetime and messages icons are almost completely indistinguishable. Get angry and say I'm blind, but so is a lot of the userbase - like legitimately, legally blind people.
The camera icon on iOS is just a fucking camera lens with a grey background. No context.
I use macOS and have done so for several years. But I had to look up this app icon to know what app it was. It’s the Pages app, which I don’t use and don’t keep in my dock. Looking at only the leftmost icon, I was thinking it might be the Notes app or the Freeform app, both of which might conceivably also be represented by what to me looks like an Apple Pencil for iPad.
Looking at the reminder of the icons, I recognize that it’s not the Notes app because although I no longer use that one I have in the past so I remember that it has looked like a notepad with some lines and some yellow on it. But the leftmost one might as well have been a newer version of Notes than the one I last used.
Anyone who thinks an intricate illustration of a quill and ink communicates to the user "Hey this app is our Microsoft Word"...is not thinking about what function an icon is supposed to serve.
It's like comparing a road sign to an 18th century painting and saying "LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE FALLEN!"
The quill and ink at least communicates that it's about writing. The new one is so abstract that when I first looked at it I had no idea what I was even looking at, it certainly doesn't communicate "this is like word" to me. Without comparison to the previous icon, how many people do you think would understand that the bottom line is intended to be a stroke drawn by the pen?
I think you might be post-hoc rationalizing an emotional feeling, as clearly this meme is emotionally triggering to everyones nostalgia/pessimism nerve (hence why it went viral).
I'm 100% positive more people would guess the far left icon is a text editor compared to the far right icon. Not that I like the left icon aesthetically. Both are pretty weak icons.
Leftmost is probably a pen, rightmost is definitely a pen and specifically a fountain pen. I've never seen these icons before, and I'm trying to be the fairest I can, and I think rightmost wins at evoking "text editor". But the one exactly in the center wins by a mile. Pen on lined paper, hard to do better.
Same thought.
The one on the left just conveys "notes" to me. Middle actually seems to be about a more "well put together" document. A fountain pen by itself doesn't necessarily mean documents to me, but signing them.
As the icons progress to the left, identification increasingly depends on colour and shape. Since there are a limited number of colours and shapes, they tend to get reused. This increasingly leads to mis-identification of icons.
This is particularly true for the visually impaired and some elderly and neuro-atypical people.
What matters in an icon is uniqueness. Only the skeuomorphic icons to the right can be unique enough for proper identification.
Trendiness of visual appearance has no place in the functionality of a complex machine. If you think it does, I submit the following for your consideration: you. are. a. monster.
Yes, I said that and I mean it. You followers of Jony Ive and his ilk are assholes. The rest of us don't give a shit about your design schools. We just want to be able to click on the right thing.
> identification increasingly depends on colour and shape.
If only they would stop there. These design terrorists won't even let us have that much; Google's Android apps all use the same 4-color-rainbow scheme. Not only did they get rid of the ability to visually identify the icons by color, but you can't even really identify them by shape because applying four highly constrasting colors to a simple shape breaks up its silhouette into something that is not quickly recognisable at a glance. It's as though they're intentionally trying to make the icons have as little functional utility as they possibly can.
Oh hi everyone! So funny to see how my quippy little tweet blew up the last few days on all the platforms (much more than when I share actual things I make, to my great dismay - if you're an artist/photographer, check out my apps & tools: https://heliographe.studio).
There's lots of interesting discussions to be had around what makes a great icon (but social media platforms aren't the places to have those deep conversations). For example the original Mac HIG says that an app icon should:
- clearly represent the document the application creates
- use graphics that convey meaning about what your application does
The first point might be a little outdated, as we tend to live in a "post-document" world, especially on mobile. The second is broad enough that it holds up, and under that lens it doesn't seem that an image of a pen/stylus is most appropriate for a word processor app.
By that metric, the Mavericks/Catalina (5th and 6th on the linked image) seem like the strongest icons. The Big Sur (4th) one isn't too bad given the "must fit in a squircle constraints" that came with it, but it starts to feel less like a word processor app icon - it could as easily be an icon for TextEdit/Notes.
The most recent 3 are very hard to defend - the main thing they have going for them is that because they are simpler and monochromatic, they fit more easily within a broader design system/icon family. Even then, the simpler shape doesn't make them more legible - a number of people have told me they thought it was a bandaid at first, or maybe something terminal-related for the orange on black one. The "line" under the pencil (or is it a shadow?) on the most recent one is almost as thick as the pencil itself, and blends with it because gestalt theory.
I agree that the 7th one (original ink bottle) has a few issues that don't necessarily make it the best choice for an icon - but dang, the level of craft that goes into it makes it an instant classic for me. And it does retain a fairly distinct, legible shape that still makes it a solid icon even if the detail gets lost at smaller sizes.
Icons need to be quickly recognizable, but at the same time an icon is not a glyph - and illustrational approach do have their place. Especially on devices with larger screens where they are going to appear quite large in most contexts.
The big elephant in the room with all this is that icons 5/6/7 clearly take more craft skill to execute than icons 1/2/3, and Apple used to be the absolute reference - no debate possible - when it came to these matters. As a long time software designer (and former Apple designer myself through the 2010s, although I was on the hardware interaction design side, and not making icons), it is sad that this is no longer true.
I grew up with Hypercard etc. and always loved the classic icons, like these: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/designed-with-kare-in...
Don't suppose you've ever extended the timeline further back? I bet there would be some interesting discussion!
Between this, and icon-only toolbars and ribbons, I think we're reinventing Chinese, badly. Ideographic characters can often convey meaning succinctly.
My vote is to either go back to picture icons, or use Chinese characters with localized pronunciation, so 車 or 车 is car, and so on.
Just like most software icons are not legible without prior knowledge like arrow down mean to save, a circle with a line mean power on/off, etc. Both are ideographic, and I guess some software icons might be a bit more pictographic (like a cogwheel meaning settings because you are interacting with the machine).
Incidentally, the largest group of Chinese characters are phono-semantic e.g. encode both meaning and pronunciation. Over half of all Chinese characters are in that bucket. That actually allows speakers to have some ability to guess both pronunciation and meaning of characters they have never seen. There are rules to guide this.[0]
In Classical Chinese actually. Mandarin, which I assume you mean, is not the language these characters were designed for. But it is related enough that the phonetic hints often (but not always) help.
That might be a better word to use, maybe. But I'm not sure there was an adequate word for the point I was trying to make.
The linguistic definition of ideographic is that it is a language which uses symbols to represent concepts, rather than just literal pictures (pictographic) or sounds (alphabet or syllabrie).
Linguistics textbooks as far as I'm aware do not define symbol in this context, but generally a symbol seeks to represent the concept. Emoji are great symbols - you see an emoji and you largely understand its meaning, even if you have never seen it before.
The modern Chinese writing system is so abstracted that even an otherwise highly educated person that just lacks exposure to Chinese written script would have absolutely no idea what any of the characters mean. 一, 二, 三, sure. Beyond that, no fucking clue.
So yeah, they wouldn't be legible. Because as symbols, they objectively suck until you learn the basic components, structure, and patterns of organization of the characters.
So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
But yeah, not legible might have gotten the point across better.
> So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
If I write math equations in an unfamiliar and inscrutable notation does that somehow make them "not math"?
I don't think ideography is in the eye of the beholder but rather the creator. Using the uninitiated as your standard doesn't seem to work very well for most things beyond the absolute basics.
The key observation here with relevance to the original topic would probably be that icons that are legible to the uninitiated are likely to be of benefit. Even if you don't really care to accommodate them it's still going to help you to get your choices adopted.
Thus an amusing thought occurs to me. If we did want to switch to Chinese characters for icons it would probably make sense to do so gradually, one app every six months or so.
Icon - Ideographic character is a really interesting connection I've never seen made before that seems to capture what is going on. Don't agree with your conclusion to "use chinese characters" though. I don't think it's easy to tell what they depict.
Why are people arguing that icons should be intuitively tell you what the app is about? Since when was that the goal of an icon (in paritucal an app icon)? It should be easily distinguishable from other icons. If I don't know what the icon means it will take me exactly 1s to find out by clicking on it, after that I will know what the app icon is for, and I only care if I can distinguish it easily from other icons, so I don't accidentally start a different app.
I strongly agree. But (having just replied to someone else about ideography) it leads to an interesting thought. Once you learn them the app icons become a shared legible writing system. Going to drive to the store? Go lang, Google Drive, Play Store. You get the idea.
It's a trademark violating abomination but I think we ought to give it a try.
The old skeuomorphic Apple icons were so easily distinguishable and yet still identifiable as Apple, a tough act to balance today amid competing design languages in oceans of competing apps. I thought they were great.
That pen and ink icon had a classic feel to it. It made me think about the time and effort demanded by handwriting that I was bypassing by opening that app. That kind of visual poetry is lost in these flat designs, where communicating membership in a brand's ecosystem seems to beat out other priorities.
Apple mostly cares about legibility and consistency in icons now, not art. All the new iOS features like tints and liquid glass don't lend themselves well to intricate designs. It's disappointing, but I tend to agree that the skeuomorphic icons are harder to read.
From their icon guidelines:
"Embrace simplicity in your icon design. Simple icons tend to be easiest for people to understand and recognize. An icon with fine visual features might look busy when rendered with system-provided shadows and highlights..."
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
Self plug, but I made an app related to this - it's a conceptual art gallery for app icons. I thought it would be an interesting experiment to remove the functional premise and just let an icon be a decorative symbol. It's called 001 (https://001.graphics)
It feels like Apple did all of this in reverse. They created a new UI system and effects that look like shit with any amount of fine detail, and now suddenly their design guide says "actually fine details are bad for the user". They didn't come up with a good design, they came up with a shader tech demo and had to make a design that works with that new constraint.
Yeah, rendering at smaller sizes is one thing, but icons being made uninterpretable by system provided shadows and highlighting seems like an unforced error.
I use a Mac daily, have for years now. I did not recognize that the icon in the article was for "pages" until it came to the icon with the word pages on it.
The icon is horrible and generic and has failed to leave an impression on me over multiple years.
> Apple mostly cares about legibility and consistency in icons now, not art.
The second-to-oldest one is legible. The word “PAGES” is quite legible. It’s pretty clear what’s going on. In fact, it’s the only one in the entire set where I would look at the icon and quickly recognize what it is and what it’s for. (The one that is one iteration newer is worse because it’s less legible.)
I'm sure design theory says the new ones are better, but the very first one was much clearer for users. Also on the phone I could say "click on the ink with the pen".
That icon is pretty terrible. Fountain pens were obsolete 50 years ago and ink in bottles is even more outdated. What's with the shiny spherical bottle? It feels like a hipster icon design to me.
Of course picking a meaningful icon is trés difficult.
If we are given the name and then we learn the icon, then perhaps it doesn't matter too much what the icon is?
> Fountain pens were obsolete 50 years ago and ink in bottles is even more outdated
My friend, you have no idea what you’re missing out on. Even cheap fountain pens can be very good these days, and we are living in a golden age of bottled inks.
I remember growing up with Apple computers, even the black-and-white Macs were easier to understand than today's nonsense, with its "liquid glass" and hidden modes like scrollbars that suddenly appear.
Kid Pix was for kids. Kids could understand it. Easily.
Macs were easy to use and understand. What happened? Steve Jobs passed away, that's what happened... and everyone stepped up to "make their mark", first of all Jony Ive.
I like how the new icon forces you to do product placement for Apple devices just to explain it. Tap the icon with the Apple Pencil and rectangle. Just don't convey it using color, that's now completely unpredictable.
GUIs' beneficial "skeuomorphism" probably peaked around the mid-'90s, where controls and their states were clearly demarcated but not absurdly photo-realistic. The bevel on a button told you if it was depressed or not, but that amounted to flipping the brightness on a couple of pixel-wide outlines.
Apple did contribute to the backlash (and the over-correction to no design at all, AKA "flat") with their brain-dead skeuomorphic UI. One example hobbled iTunes for years: Apple depicted the current-track display at the top of the iTunes window as an "LCD" with a glass window over it; obviously you wouldn't try to interact or press on a glass-covered LCD. But in iTunes, there were controls hidden in there. WTF? Why would you ever even attempt to click in it?
Equally stupid was Game Center, where Apple depicted controls as painted onto the felt of a Blackjack table. Who the hell would attempt to "operate" the paint on a felt gambling-table surface?
My sister is switching to macOS and she won’t be able to tell this is a word app. She won’t be able to notice it with the ink bottle either. These represent the pen when ideally they should represent the document which is what the word app does. I have to admit Microsoft office apps actually have / have had sensible icons.
It seems like user interfaces should be decoupled from functionality of applications. Someone should be able to freeze their user interface in time if they wish.
This is kind of how things used to be when you had 3rd party clients for things like email/irc/XMPP. Eventually it was decided that having a unified design and feature set was much more beneficial and simple for users than being able to theme the client.
I agree. Six years ago during COVID I wrote a document describing my idea of a dream personal computing environment, where all functionality is accessible using an API, enabling scripting and customizable UIs. UIs are simply shells covering functionality provided by various objects.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to implement this vision, but Smalltalk environments such as Squeak and Pharo appear to be great environments to play around with such ideas, since everything is a live object.
It's not a novel idea: I've also invented that, as have most people I know who've thought about this problem. (This is a good thing: it means it'll be fairly easy to bootstrap a collaborative project.) I never got as far as writing up a full document, though: only scattered notes for my own use. Would you mind sharing yours?
Because people are habitual, and mental load increases when you have to learn the UI again every update. Like if someone decided to change all your pots and pans every few months, it's harzadous for cooking.
For the same reason you can keep the interior design of your house the same for decades. Also, why not? It should just be a UI theme, decoupled from actual functionality.
Is it? I've seen us going from obvious skeuomorphism to more and more abstract shapes, until we hit peak Windows 8 hubris where everything is a coloured square with a monochrome symbol in it. Then back to icons where shades of colour and contrast finally start meaning things again, but getting stuck in an endless balancing on the edge where icons are abstract enough to confuse but not clear enough to describe their function. We've never gotten fully back to actual skeuomorphism.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say! The furthest right icon of this post is peak skeuomorphism, but we've never actually gotten back to it. Someone's always gone "wait, this icon looks a bit too much like the real thing, we can't have that!". It has never been cyclical!
It's been so long since I used a mac that I don't recognize any of these icons (or maybe it's a iPad thing?)
What app is it even for? The middle one looks like writing something. The left ones look like drawing a line or testing/calibrating a stylus? The inkpot? I don't even. And the two on the middle right look like desktop publishing?
There was more meeting time and salary budget involved in picking the yellow-red gradient inside a pen from the first icon on the left, that in the entire process of creating and releasing the icon first from the right.
The best icon is the original MacWrite icon by Susan Kare [1]. No superfluous details, simple, and communicates the act of writing perfectly.
Susan’s suite of original icons for the Macintosh set a high watermark for legibility, usability, and comforting design. We really haven’t returned to that level of ease of use ever since.
Man I fucking hate this trend in icon design where they've both become so insanely basic and also tried to be "consistent" with all the icons to the point of being useless. Google started this a while back with their app icons on Android, where they all have some basic shape and the Google colors and it still sucks trying to find the right one. The horrendous icon theming users are able to do only makes it worse, reducing them to two-color versions.
Microsoft did this okay until their recent liquid glass redesign, which just went further into colored blob territory.
Google was the only one I disliked because literally all of their icons looked the same. The Apple ones are all fairly recognizable just by colour. Settings: grey, App store: blue, etc.
The colour theming of icons is a bad feature IMO. Driven by the need to show new things in the latest update but makes usability of the phone much worse. At least its something you can just not use and it doesn't cause issues.
Off-topic, I guess, but on-screen icons are not the only things you have to puzzle about. On my quite new Asus laptop (which I really like) there is a key on the keyboard that launches Asus's My Asus application, which does hardware-specific configuration. I like the app, I like easy access to it - what I don't understand is why the label on the key is "//]".
Yes, you are right, it is a (bad) representation of what the My Asus app puts up on the Windows taskbar - I hadn't noticed that. But even then, I can't see it as M & A. But this is all OT, and I'm not expecting any explanations here. Thanks.
I get what they're trying to say, but I don't think a 14yo with their first Mac is going to know what an inkwell represents. Let alone what an inkwell is.
I have no idea what app this is an icon for, but from the ones in the middle I have to assume it's Apple's version of Word? I'll agree that the inkwell one is dated and doesn't work well now, but how on earth is a pencil + line conveying anything useful?
Pages, which is a word processor. I could only figure that out from the 5th and 6th icons, which are breaking the cardinal rule about having text in the icon.
Personally, I wouldn't be able to figure out what the first three icons are for without the context of the other icons. The first two icons are meaningless. The third icon vaugly represents a pen drawing a line, which would lead me to think it is a drawing program. The fourth program would allow me to identify it as word processor, and is my favourite. The rest are identifiable as well.
Microsoft office isn't much better but at least there were consistent elements between versions to make them easier to identify for experienced users who are upgrading. I couldn't say the same for Apple's icons. LibreOffice's icons make it easier to identify each program, even if they aren't the prettiest.
Microsoft's icons (until their most recent Liquid Glass redesign) were probably the best attempt at abstract but still useful to a new user. The Excel icon looked like a grid, Word had lines, PowerPoint a pie chart. They're not perfect, but it's interesting to see the new ones that have just less detailed and are a little more blobby, or melted.
Icon design is actually really interesting because good icons are an attractor in a phase space defined by the expectations of the users of those icons. An icon doesn’t need to look like the action it represents. It needs to evoke the concept of the action when the user sees it. So in a perfect world the icon evolves towards the user’s expectation while the user learns their expectation based on the icon.
I would argue that only makes sense if there is some consistency in the icon through time. There were four major changes in representation in the icons, and the change in contrast/colour between the first and second icons is sufficient to suggest a fifth representation in my mind.
For instance an icon with a pointy stick over top of a horizontal rectangle with a gradient applied conveys a tool for doing document and page layout. Got it.
I understand some people like skeuomorphism and that's fine. But I've noticed a certain arrogance skeuomorphism fans tend to have as if it's THE right way to design and everyone else is wrong.
Given the choice between "These icons look a bit garish in a subjective sense" and "what abstract art piece describes the Pages app" I'd rather have the one that's still useful. One benefit of skeuomorphism was the level of detail, that's fully been abandoned along with the affordances that brought.
I've honestly never had an issue with using flat design. Or if I have, it hasn't been enough of an issue to remember. I don't mean this in a judgemental way, just that I legitimately don't understand why people care.
That's fair, it's not like this is completely breaking usability. But I have to ask, do you think the most recent pages icon is really the most accessible and useful version for this app? The logical end of the flat design and minimalism trend got us here and I think it's grossly over done.
That's hard to answer because clearly my opinion is disconnected from most people. If this thread didn't exist I wouldn't give it more than a second though "that's the new icon ok"
Because it is literally the best way to design and everyone else is wrong. Look at actual HCI studies. There's exactly zero arguments for any kind of flat or minimalistic design outside of art, or if you want to make a statement.
The only reason it's used that it's cheaper and faster to make, is perfectly soulless not to make anyone upset, and it's trendy.
>There's exactly zero arguments for any kind of flat or minimalistic design outside of art
Here’s one: helping the interface stay out of the way, removing clutter so the actual content of the app takes focus instead.
I can tell you it works because with the new Glass stuff everything is begging for attention again, and I hate it.
And just to be clear, I’m not voting for design overflattened to the point one can’t tell icons apart. For me, around 4 in the diagram is the ideal middle point.
What’s he’s saying (behind too many opinions) is that actual HCI studies collected in something resembling a scientific manner show very clearly that skeuomorphic work better, for many clearly defined metrics of better.
It looks like someone getting good at illustration. Older icons are far better illustrations. However icon design is not just about illustration, it's about clarity and affordances. Icons don't exist in isolation like an illustration, they exist alongside the rest of the UX and other app icons, and being recognisable is important.
All that to say, the sweet pot was likely somewhere in the middle of this timeline. The earliest icons aren't recognisable enough as they're too illustrative. The later icons aren't recognisable enough because they're too basic. The middle are pretty, clear from colour, clear from shape, well branded.
I spent half a year designing and creating 200+ icons for a custom geospatial mapping app. I really enjoyed the work but it was grueling and tedious, especially the design part. Too many people had too many different opinions on which symbols meant what, which styles clearly conveyed ideas without being too detailed, and many other things that kept wasting my time and causing a lot of rework and inconsistencies. It was literally just me doing the work, so I stopped trying to get consensus and took a few weeks to redesign the entire set and even used color science to inform my design decisions. I created the entire set without external input, then presented it. Sure there was some tweaking here and there, but I believe it turned about to be great and no one really complained in the end. The most important part was that end-users were happy. I used Inkscape and developed a set of scripts to automate the build and had everything in a very organized Git repo.
> no one really complained
They were happy that someone finally made a decision, and freed them from the burden of fruitless repeated deliberation.
Yep. Sometimes it's better to keep everybody away from the bikeshed until it's fully finished and painted.
Possibly the half year of annoyance helped inform the weeks of opinionated inspiration.
I’d be interested in seeing those if you’re open to sharing.
can you share the icons? curious to see the finished product
I prefer illustrations and old school icons. Every icon was unique and easily recognizable.
Now all icons look alike, and it takes longer to recognize.
I am basically icon blind thanks to a couple decades of icon churn
I agree with your conclusion that the sweet spot is in the middle, because I could easily explain to my mom "click the icon that has a pen and paper" and it would be very obvious. The current icon is completely ambiguous crap.
None of the Pages icons are recognisable because almost no one uses Pages. The word icon is just a blue W which is not any more illustrative than an orange pen.
One of my favorite series is Nathan Lowell's Solar Clipper... in In Ashes Born, there's an bit about creating a logo for the company...
My own choice for a gavatar is similar - https://github.com/shagie (it's from a photo I took). While by itself its a neat bit, its also something that is easily recognizable as "that's Shagie's" when its projected on a screen on the other side of the room or if it's someone's full screen share and everyone's icons are shrunk down to smaller blurs - mine remains clearly distinct.The goal of an icon is to be able to identify it quickly without having to read the associated text.
The inkwell and the two with the paper are artistic - but they aren't things that stand out quickly when you're trying to find them in the launchpad or on the sidebar.
Pages is orange. Numbers is green. iTunes is red. Keynote is blue.
For Microsoft, Word is blue, Excel is green, and Powerpoint is orange (and Outlook has an envelope like shape). The letter reinforces the choice, but that's more of a hint and reinforcement.
The shape and color is the important thing for quickly finding what you're looking for.
The office icons are rather subtle but do sorta illustrate what they do if you look carefully - the word icon is a list, the excel icon is a spreadsheet, and the powerpoint icon is a pie chart.
That you have to look closely is kinda crap lol. Whoever designed the icons was more obsessed with consistent branding instead of making icons that make sense.
Looking at the start menu, some MS icons are great. Paint, Notepad, Calculator are all fantastic.
Office doesn't exist any more. Product suite was renamed to Copilot 365.
Document, pen, orange, and name "Pages" is pretty excellent all round for recognisability in my opinion.
Over the years Word/Powerpoint/Excel have done similar things, they have their own colour, their own name/letter, and usually have had a descriptive graphic in the icon too, indicating a document, grid, or slide.
Anyone else doesn't like modern minimalist icon design? It looks boring.
Boring and same. Harder to use. It is for people who organize their books by the color of covers.
icons should prioritize usability first,and design, intersting afterwards.
if your users need billboards, then your job is to make great bill boards
The current icons really aren't that good. Looking at apple specifically: The facetime and messages icons are almost completely indistinguishable. Get angry and say I'm blind, but so is a lot of the userbase - like legitimately, legally blind people.
The camera icon on iOS is just a fucking camera lens with a grey background. No context.
The calculator one is actually pretty good.
The photos one is also bullshit lol.
I agree. The middle one seems to be the best combination of clarity and simplicity.
Tbh I like the far left way more than the rest. It is simple, clear, and distinctive.
Dead middle is decent too.
How in the world are the newer icons more clear?
They are hard to distinguish from each other, removing the main goal of an icon…to make it easy and quick to uniquely identify an app.
I use macOS and have done so for several years. But I had to look up this app icon to know what app it was. It’s the Pages app, which I don’t use and don’t keep in my dock. Looking at only the leftmost icon, I was thinking it might be the Notes app or the Freeform app, both of which might conceivably also be represented by what to me looks like an Apple Pencil for iPad.
Looking at the reminder of the icons, I recognize that it’s not the Notes app because although I no longer use that one I have in the past so I remember that it has looked like a notepad with some lines and some yellow on it. But the leftmost one might as well have been a newer version of Notes than the one I last used.
Exactly.
Anyone who thinks an intricate illustration of a quill and ink communicates to the user "Hey this app is our Microsoft Word"...is not thinking about what function an icon is supposed to serve.
It's like comparing a road sign to an 18th century painting and saying "LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE FALLEN!"
These are not serious people.
The quill and ink at least communicates that it's about writing. The new one is so abstract that when I first looked at it I had no idea what I was even looking at, it certainly doesn't communicate "this is like word" to me. Without comparison to the previous icon, how many people do you think would understand that the bottom line is intended to be a stroke drawn by the pen?
I think you might be post-hoc rationalizing an emotional feeling, as clearly this meme is emotionally triggering to everyones nostalgia/pessimism nerve (hence why it went viral).
I'm 100% positive more people would guess the far left icon is a text editor compared to the far right icon. Not that I like the left icon aesthetically. Both are pretty weak icons.
Leftmost is probably a pen, rightmost is definitely a pen and specifically a fountain pen. I've never seen these icons before, and I'm trying to be the fairest I can, and I think rightmost wins at evoking "text editor". But the one exactly in the center wins by a mile. Pen on lined paper, hard to do better.
Same thought. The one on the left just conveys "notes" to me. Middle actually seems to be about a more "well put together" document. A fountain pen by itself doesn't necessarily mean documents to me, but signing them.
As you, never seen these icons in my entire life.
Neither extreme looks like a real word processor. The left looks like maybe an icon for notes. The right looks like it’s for a drawing program.
Pages is a word processor. Not a text editor.
The far left icon's color gradient and Apple Pencil shape made me think it was for drawing.
It's a page layout / word processing program. I see the icon and I think "maybe text editor, maybe drawing program".
#4 or #5 are best at conveying what it is for and for being distinct from other icons.
One thing I'm not seeing much of in the comments, that I think is worthwhile to highlight:
Every single one of these icons should be available to choose by the user.
Some folks make good icons; others do not. Taste is highly subjective, and this applies to user interfaces moreso than user experience.
Interfaces should always be customizable; experiences should always be consistent.
Ghostty is an example of a program that gives you a bunch of different icons to choose from and an easy way to customize it even further.
I don't know any other
As the icons progress to the left, identification increasingly depends on colour and shape. Since there are a limited number of colours and shapes, they tend to get reused. This increasingly leads to mis-identification of icons.
This is particularly true for the visually impaired and some elderly and neuro-atypical people.
What matters in an icon is uniqueness. Only the skeuomorphic icons to the right can be unique enough for proper identification.
Trendiness of visual appearance has no place in the functionality of a complex machine. If you think it does, I submit the following for your consideration: you. are. a. monster.
Yes, I said that and I mean it. You followers of Jony Ive and his ilk are assholes. The rest of us don't give a shit about your design schools. We just want to be able to click on the right thing.
Hate me, but it's true.
> identification increasingly depends on colour and shape.
If only they would stop there. These design terrorists won't even let us have that much; Google's Android apps all use the same 4-color-rainbow scheme. Not only did they get rid of the ability to visually identify the icons by color, but you can't even really identify them by shape because applying four highly constrasting colors to a simple shape breaks up its silhouette into something that is not quickly recognisable at a glance. It's as though they're intentionally trying to make the icons have as little functional utility as they possibly can.
"I don't like the style of Apple's icons. It's like they're not even trying!"
Meanwhile, at Adobe: https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog.html
Oh hi everyone! So funny to see how my quippy little tweet blew up the last few days on all the platforms (much more than when I share actual things I make, to my great dismay - if you're an artist/photographer, check out my apps & tools: https://heliographe.studio).
There's lots of interesting discussions to be had around what makes a great icon (but social media platforms aren't the places to have those deep conversations). For example the original Mac HIG says that an app icon should:
- clearly represent the document the application creates
- use graphics that convey meaning about what your application does
(https://www.threads.com/@heliographe.studio/post/DTehlciE3wY)
The first point might be a little outdated, as we tend to live in a "post-document" world, especially on mobile. The second is broad enough that it holds up, and under that lens it doesn't seem that an image of a pen/stylus is most appropriate for a word processor app.
By that metric, the Mavericks/Catalina (5th and 6th on the linked image) seem like the strongest icons. The Big Sur (4th) one isn't too bad given the "must fit in a squircle constraints" that came with it, but it starts to feel less like a word processor app icon - it could as easily be an icon for TextEdit/Notes.
The most recent 3 are very hard to defend - the main thing they have going for them is that because they are simpler and monochromatic, they fit more easily within a broader design system/icon family. Even then, the simpler shape doesn't make them more legible - a number of people have told me they thought it was a bandaid at first, or maybe something terminal-related for the orange on black one. The "line" under the pencil (or is it a shadow?) on the most recent one is almost as thick as the pencil itself, and blends with it because gestalt theory.
I agree that the 7th one (original ink bottle) has a few issues that don't necessarily make it the best choice for an icon - but dang, the level of craft that goes into it makes it an instant classic for me. And it does retain a fairly distinct, legible shape that still makes it a solid icon even if the detail gets lost at smaller sizes.
Icons need to be quickly recognizable, but at the same time an icon is not a glyph - and illustrational approach do have their place. Especially on devices with larger screens where they are going to appear quite large in most contexts.
The big elephant in the room with all this is that icons 5/6/7 clearly take more craft skill to execute than icons 1/2/3, and Apple used to be the absolute reference - no debate possible - when it came to these matters. As a long time software designer (and former Apple designer myself through the 2010s, although I was on the hardware interaction design side, and not making icons), it is sad that this is no longer true.
I grew up with Hypercard etc. and always loved the classic icons, like these: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/designed-with-kare-in... Don't suppose you've ever extended the timeline further back? I bet there would be some interesting discussion!
Between this, and icon-only toolbars and ribbons, I think we're reinventing Chinese, badly. Ideographic characters can often convey meaning succinctly.
My vote is to either go back to picture icons, or use Chinese characters with localized pronunciation, so 車 or 车 is car, and so on.
Chinese is not in any way ideographic unless you are already partially literate.
If you put the history of the orthography in reverse, it looks like someone getting good at drawing.
It's still ideographic but not legible, right?
Just like most software icons are not legible without prior knowledge like arrow down mean to save, a circle with a line mean power on/off, etc. Both are ideographic, and I guess some software icons might be a bit more pictographic (like a cogwheel meaning settings because you are interacting with the machine).
Incidentally, the largest group of Chinese characters are phono-semantic e.g. encode both meaning and pronunciation. Over half of all Chinese characters are in that bucket. That actually allows speakers to have some ability to guess both pronunciation and meaning of characters they have never seen. There are rules to guide this.[0]
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C7%92u_bi%C4%81n_d%C3%BA_bi%...
...in Standard Chinese only, other varieties having very different pronunciations, right?
In Classical Chinese actually. Mandarin, which I assume you mean, is not the language these characters were designed for. But it is related enough that the phonetic hints often (but not always) help.
That might be a better word to use, maybe. But I'm not sure there was an adequate word for the point I was trying to make.
The linguistic definition of ideographic is that it is a language which uses symbols to represent concepts, rather than just literal pictures (pictographic) or sounds (alphabet or syllabrie).
Linguistics textbooks as far as I'm aware do not define symbol in this context, but generally a symbol seeks to represent the concept. Emoji are great symbols - you see an emoji and you largely understand its meaning, even if you have never seen it before.
The modern Chinese writing system is so abstracted that even an otherwise highly educated person that just lacks exposure to Chinese written script would have absolutely no idea what any of the characters mean. 一, 二, 三, sure. Beyond that, no fucking clue.
So yeah, they wouldn't be legible. Because as symbols, they objectively suck until you learn the basic components, structure, and patterns of organization of the characters.
So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
But yeah, not legible might have gotten the point across better.
> So to the extent that an ideographic language conveys words as ideas through symbology, and to the uninitiated these symbols lack all meaning, it's not really ideographic is it?
If I write math equations in an unfamiliar and inscrutable notation does that somehow make them "not math"?
I don't think ideography is in the eye of the beholder but rather the creator. Using the uninitiated as your standard doesn't seem to work very well for most things beyond the absolute basics.
The key observation here with relevance to the original topic would probably be that icons that are legible to the uninitiated are likely to be of benefit. Even if you don't really care to accommodate them it's still going to help you to get your choices adopted.
Thus an amusing thought occurs to me. If we did want to switch to Chinese characters for icons it would probably make sense to do so gradually, one app every six months or so.
They are of you go far enough back. This is what 车 looked like around 1000 BC: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E8%BB%8A-oracle.svg...
Icon - Ideographic character is a really interesting connection I've never seen made before that seems to capture what is going on. Don't agree with your conclusion to "use chinese characters" though. I don't think it's easy to tell what they depict.
Why are people arguing that icons should be intuitively tell you what the app is about? Since when was that the goal of an icon (in paritucal an app icon)? It should be easily distinguishable from other icons. If I don't know what the icon means it will take me exactly 1s to find out by clicking on it, after that I will know what the app icon is for, and I only care if I can distinguish it easily from other icons, so I don't accidentally start a different app.
I strongly agree. But (having just replied to someone else about ideography) it leads to an interesting thought. Once you learn them the app icons become a shared legible writing system. Going to drive to the store? Go lang, Google Drive, Play Store. You get the idea.
It's a trademark violating abomination but I think we ought to give it a try.
You must be a huge fan of purposefully obscure HN titles.
And Concentration. Click on the giraffe to get to the Print dialog!
Hm... what was the Print dialog hidden under again?
My language app is an owl.
My web browser is a fox curled up.
My media player is a traffic cone.
Out of the 40 app icons on my taskbar, maybe three of them remotely indicate the product's purpose.
app icons ≠ icons for functions within an app
But you knew that.
why shouldn't an icon be at least partially skeuomorphic?
The old skeuomorphic Apple icons were so easily distinguishable and yet still identifiable as Apple, a tough act to balance today amid competing design languages in oceans of competing apps. I thought they were great.
That pen and ink icon had a classic feel to it. It made me think about the time and effort demanded by handwriting that I was bypassing by opening that app. That kind of visual poetry is lost in these flat designs, where communicating membership in a brand's ecosystem seems to beat out other priorities.
Apple mostly cares about legibility and consistency in icons now, not art. All the new iOS features like tints and liquid glass don't lend themselves well to intricate designs. It's disappointing, but I tend to agree that the skeuomorphic icons are harder to read.
From their icon guidelines: "Embrace simplicity in your icon design. Simple icons tend to be easiest for people to understand and recognize. An icon with fine visual features might look busy when rendered with system-provided shadows and highlights..." https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
Self plug, but I made an app related to this - it's a conceptual art gallery for app icons. I thought it would be an interesting experiment to remove the functional premise and just let an icon be a decorative symbol. It's called 001 (https://001.graphics)
It feels like Apple did all of this in reverse. They created a new UI system and effects that look like shit with any amount of fine detail, and now suddenly their design guide says "actually fine details are bad for the user". They didn't come up with a good design, they came up with a shader tech demo and had to make a design that works with that new constraint.
Yeah, rendering at smaller sizes is one thing, but icons being made uninterpretable by system provided shadows and highlighting seems like an unforced error.
I use a Mac daily, have for years now. I did not recognize that the icon in the article was for "pages" until it came to the icon with the word pages on it.
The icon is horrible and generic and has failed to leave an impression on me over multiple years.
> Apple mostly cares about legibility and consistency in icons now, not art.
The second-to-oldest one is legible. The word “PAGES” is quite legible. It’s pretty clear what’s going on. In fact, it’s the only one in the entire set where I would look at the icon and quickly recognize what it is and what it’s for. (The one that is one iteration newer is worse because it’s less legible.)
I'm sure design theory says the new ones are better, but the very first one was much clearer for users. Also on the phone I could say "click on the ink with the pen".
There is no such "design theory," only schools of design
I wish this was better understood.
That icon is pretty terrible. Fountain pens were obsolete 50 years ago and ink in bottles is even more outdated. What's with the shiny spherical bottle? It feels like a hipster icon design to me.
Of course picking a meaningful icon is trés difficult.
If we are given the name and then we learn the icon, then perhaps it doesn't matter too much what the icon is?
> Fountain pens were obsolete 50 years ago and ink in bottles is even more outdated
My friend, you have no idea what you’re missing out on. Even cheap fountain pens can be very good these days, and we are living in a golden age of bottled inks.
and still in 2026 is wide market of those pens with price ranges ~$2000-$3 and ink chooses where some bottles costs ~$50 for 30-60ml.
On the phone you can now say "Command + space, then search pages"
For a moment I thought you meant you could say "command space" to Siri on iOS and was prepared to have my mind blown.
I remember growing up with Apple computers, even the black-and-white Macs were easier to understand than today's nonsense, with its "liquid glass" and hidden modes like scrollbars that suddenly appear.
Kid Pix was for kids. Kids could understand it. Easily.
Macs were easy to use and understand. What happened? Steve Jobs passed away, that's what happened... and everyone stepped up to "make their mark", first of all Jony Ive.
"Ink? Oh is that what's in the bottle?"
I like how the new icon forces you to do product placement for Apple devices just to explain it. Tap the icon with the Apple Pencil and rectangle. Just don't convey it using color, that's now completely unpredictable.
I tend to like skeuomorphic design, however, if you design an entire interface that way, it will look dated, for better or worse.
The one in the middle is probably what I would gravitate towards myself. The right three really wear their date on their sleeve.
"Dated" is subjective, and not worth worrying about. I don't care if something looks dated, I care if it's clear and easy to use.
GUIs' beneficial "skeuomorphism" probably peaked around the mid-'90s, where controls and their states were clearly demarcated but not absurdly photo-realistic. The bevel on a button told you if it was depressed or not, but that amounted to flipping the brightness on a couple of pixel-wide outlines.
Apple did contribute to the backlash (and the over-correction to no design at all, AKA "flat") with their brain-dead skeuomorphic UI. One example hobbled iTunes for years: Apple depicted the current-track display at the top of the iTunes window as an "LCD" with a glass window over it; obviously you wouldn't try to interact or press on a glass-covered LCD. But in iTunes, there were controls hidden in there. WTF? Why would you ever even attempt to click in it?
Equally stupid was Game Center, where Apple depicted controls as painted onto the felt of a Blackjack table. Who the hell would attempt to "operate" the paint on a felt gambling-table surface?
My sister is switching to macOS and she won’t be able to tell this is a word app. She won’t be able to notice it with the ink bottle either. These represent the pen when ideally they should represent the document which is what the word app does. I have to admit Microsoft office apps actually have / have had sensible icons.
Here's a wild idea, what if the option was given to the user to select the level of detail for icons?
We have such a vast library of icons now, make it an option in System Settings.
Call it themes or whatever, I'm sure every macOS enjoyer would love to play with the options and reminisce.
Celebrate your rich design history, don't trample it!
The fancy design types will never allow it. They love controlling people and forcing their designs and “improvements” on people
I’ve always liked Jakub Steiner’s Gnome icon work: https://jimmac.eu/
It seems like user interfaces should be decoupled from functionality of applications. Someone should be able to freeze their user interface in time if they wish.
This is kind of how things used to be when you had 3rd party clients for things like email/irc/XMPP. Eventually it was decided that having a unified design and feature set was much more beneficial and simple for users than being able to theme the client.
probably more beneficial for business not for a users.
I agree. Six years ago during COVID I wrote a document describing my idea of a dream personal computing environment, where all functionality is accessible using an API, enabling scripting and customizable UIs. UIs are simply shells covering functionality provided by various objects.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to implement this vision, but Smalltalk environments such as Squeak and Pharo appear to be great environments to play around with such ideas, since everything is a live object.
A lot of Linux programs are command line only, with multiple GUIs available to use them. Sounds similar to what you're describing.
It's not a novel idea: I've also invented that, as have most people I know who've thought about this problem. (This is a good thing: it means it'll be fairly easy to bootstrap a collaborative project.) I never got as far as writing up a full document, though: only scattered notes for my own use. Would you mind sharing yours?
Sure: this is the document that I wrote about building a component-based desktop:
https://mmcthrow-musings.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-proposal-for...
> Someone should be able to freeze their user interface in time if they wish.
Why?
Because people are habitual, and mental load increases when you have to learn the UI again every update. Like if someone decided to change all your pots and pans every few months, it's harzadous for cooking.
For the same reason you can keep the interior design of your house the same for decades. Also, why not? It should just be a UI theme, decoupled from actual functionality.
It's just fashion, it's cyclical, what is out of style (skeuomorphism) comes into style again, then it goes away for simplicity.
Is it? I've seen us going from obvious skeuomorphism to more and more abstract shapes, until we hit peak Windows 8 hubris where everything is a coloured square with a monochrome symbol in it. Then back to icons where shades of colour and contrast finally start meaning things again, but getting stuck in an endless balancing on the edge where icons are abstract enough to confuse but not clear enough to describe their function. We've never gotten fully back to actual skeuomorphism.
I would argue that realistic looking icons that look like the real object is skeuomorphism.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say! The furthest right icon of this post is peak skeuomorphism, but we've never actually gotten back to it. Someone's always gone "wait, this icon looks a bit too much like the real thing, we can't have that!". It has never been cyclical!
It's been so long since I used a mac that I don't recognize any of these icons (or maybe it's a iPad thing?)
What app is it even for? The middle one looks like writing something. The left ones look like drawing a line or testing/calibrating a stylus? The inkpot? I don't even. And the two on the middle right look like desktop publishing?
Pages is Apple's word processing program.
All the same thing.
Nothing like arguing about icons on HN on Saturday night. Bless you folks
Icons should not be a uniform shape.
There was more meeting time and salary budget involved in picking the yellow-red gradient inside a pen from the first icon on the left, that in the entire process of creating and releasing the icon first from the right.
The best icon is the original MacWrite icon by Susan Kare [1]. No superfluous details, simple, and communicates the act of writing perfectly.
Susan’s suite of original icons for the Macintosh set a high watermark for legibility, usability, and comforting design. We really haven’t returned to that level of ease of use ever since.
[1] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XLfMbsAfWqc/Vtae74eUHmI/AAAAAAAAH... (bottom row, 3rd from right)
Man I fucking hate this trend in icon design where they've both become so insanely basic and also tried to be "consistent" with all the icons to the point of being useless. Google started this a while back with their app icons on Android, where they all have some basic shape and the Google colors and it still sucks trying to find the right one. The horrendous icon theming users are able to do only makes it worse, reducing them to two-color versions.
Microsoft did this okay until their recent liquid glass redesign, which just went further into colored blob territory.
The worst are the icons that rely on the user using a previous version of the app to understand the very abstract version of the icon used today. See: https://mastodon.social/@BasicAppleGuy/115072885331562510
Google was the only one I disliked because literally all of their icons looked the same. The Apple ones are all fairly recognizable just by colour. Settings: grey, App store: blue, etc.
Except now the color can be completely themed right? By default it is, but it's hard to describe any of these icons if color is off the table.
The colour theming of icons is a bad feature IMO. Driven by the need to show new things in the latest update but makes usability of the phone much worse. At least its something you can just not use and it doesn't cause issues.
Off-topic, I guess, but on-screen icons are not the only things you have to puzzle about. On my quite new Asus laptop (which I really like) there is a key on the keyboard that launches Asus's My Asus application, which does hardware-specific configuration. I like the app, I like easy access to it - what I don't understand is why the label on the key is "//]".
It's the MyASUS app logo. Possibly designed to look like letters M & A mashed together.
Yes, you are right, it is a (bad) representation of what the My Asus app puts up on the Windows taskbar - I hadn't noticed that. But even then, I can't see it as M & A. But this is all OT, and I'm not expecting any explanations here. Thanks.
Future icon will just be this: ∠
Slap a gradient on that bad boy and collect your Apple paycheck buddy!
De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.
I prefer the consistent design language which is harder to do with the less abstract designs from earlier Mac days.
That website (threads.com) does not load properly on firefox on phone. Most of images are missing and layout is all messed up.
I get what they're trying to say, but I don't think a 14yo with their first Mac is going to know what an inkwell represents. Let alone what an inkwell is.
What kind of knowledge does a 14you have to parse the two sticks in the first icon easier vs. remembering some school trivia?
I have no idea what app this is an icon for, but from the ones in the middle I have to assume it's Apple's version of Word? I'll agree that the inkwell one is dated and doesn't work well now, but how on earth is a pencil + line conveying anything useful?
Pages, which is a word processor. I could only figure that out from the 5th and 6th icons, which are breaking the cardinal rule about having text in the icon.
Personally, I wouldn't be able to figure out what the first three icons are for without the context of the other icons. The first two icons are meaningless. The third icon vaugly represents a pen drawing a line, which would lead me to think it is a drawing program. The fourth program would allow me to identify it as word processor, and is my favourite. The rest are identifiable as well.
Microsoft office isn't much better but at least there were consistent elements between versions to make them easier to identify for experienced users who are upgrading. I couldn't say the same for Apple's icons. LibreOffice's icons make it easier to identify each program, even if they aren't the prettiest.
Microsoft's icons (until their most recent Liquid Glass redesign) were probably the best attempt at abstract but still useful to a new user. The Excel icon looked like a grid, Word had lines, PowerPoint a pie chart. They're not perfect, but it's interesting to see the new ones that have just less detailed and are a little more blobby, or melted.
> from the ones in the middle I have to assume it's Apple's version of Word?
Correct. Word : Excel : Powerpoint :: Pages : Numbers : Keynote.
Ah thanks, Numbers is the only one I know since it sometimes still shows up instead of Excel.
It looks like a child growing
See also: https://rakhim.exotext.com/benjamin-button-reviews-macos
The designers at Apple have a lot to answer for. It’s as if we can no longer trust Apple to make new versions better.
What’s even more surprising is someone linking to a threads link!
But why threads?
Icon design is actually really interesting because good icons are an attractor in a phase space defined by the expectations of the users of those icons. An icon doesn’t need to look like the action it represents. It needs to evoke the concept of the action when the user sees it. So in a perfect world the icon evolves towards the user’s expectation while the user learns their expectation based on the icon.
I would argue that only makes sense if there is some consistency in the icon through time. There were four major changes in representation in the icons, and the change in contrast/colour between the first and second icons is sufficient to suggest a fifth representation in my mind.
For instance an icon with a pointy stick over top of a horizontal rectangle with a gradient applied conveys a tool for doing document and page layout. Got it.
Is that what they learn at Symbolics Systems.
Not really. Last 3 are too busy for icons. They are like clipart.
The first 3 are just awful.
I personally find uninspired boring icons way easier to visually scan than a collection of unique illustrated icons.
But I agree they don’t look pretty.
It's utility vs soul.
And we have plenty of utility everywhere in tech nowadays but very little soul.
I honestly couldn't care less if my UI has soul. I just want it to work and get out of the way.
[stub for offtopicness]
I understand some people like skeuomorphism and that's fine. But I've noticed a certain arrogance skeuomorphism fans tend to have as if it's THE right way to design and everyone else is wrong.
Given the choice between "These icons look a bit garish in a subjective sense" and "what abstract art piece describes the Pages app" I'd rather have the one that's still useful. One benefit of skeuomorphism was the level of detail, that's fully been abandoned along with the affordances that brought.
I've honestly never had an issue with using flat design. Or if I have, it hasn't been enough of an issue to remember. I don't mean this in a judgemental way, just that I legitimately don't understand why people care.
That's fair, it's not like this is completely breaking usability. But I have to ask, do you think the most recent pages icon is really the most accessible and useful version for this app? The logical end of the flat design and minimalism trend got us here and I think it's grossly over done.
That's hard to answer because clearly my opinion is disconnected from most people. If this thread didn't exist I wouldn't give it more than a second though "that's the new icon ok"
Because it is literally the best way to design and everyone else is wrong. Look at actual HCI studies. There's exactly zero arguments for any kind of flat or minimalistic design outside of art, or if you want to make a statement.
The only reason it's used that it's cheaper and faster to make, is perfectly soulless not to make anyone upset, and it's trendy.
You’re kinda proving the parent’s point.
>There's exactly zero arguments for any kind of flat or minimalistic design outside of art
Here’s one: helping the interface stay out of the way, removing clutter so the actual content of the app takes focus instead.
I can tell you it works because with the new Glass stuff everything is begging for attention again, and I hate it.
And just to be clear, I’m not voting for design overflattened to the point one can’t tell icons apart. For me, around 4 in the diagram is the ideal middle point.
What’s he’s saying (behind too many opinions) is that actual HCI studies collected in something resembling a scientific manner show very clearly that skeuomorphic work better, for many clearly defined metrics of better.
> helping the interface stay out of the way, removing clutter so the actual content of the app takes focus instead.
Yeah, like when I need to guess what is clickable and what isn't...
>You’re kinda proving the parent’s point.
Exactly, I agree with the parent! They're right, it only happens that their strawman is actually true :)
thank you for providing an exemplar
In the skeuomorphic era, people said, "This $object looks dumb."
In the post-skeuomorphic era, people said, "I have no idea what this is, what it does, or what it means."
Which is a better way to fail?