Live data from Hacker News

Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

bold.pixelapse.com

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#21
I'm just thinking out loud here, but after reading the Milkshake concept, I thought that maybe the problem is in the word "share" as the driving concept and not the icon per se.

In terms of the milkshake, that's the perfect icon. You actually share something when you stop having "a whole" and now you have "a part" but then someone else has "a part" as well. That's what I've seen parent teach their kids over and over again. Sharing the ball: we both use it, share your candy we both enjoy it, even if it means I'll have less.

With electronic articles and other media that gets shared, you actually share nothing in that sense, you just let someone know about it, whilst still keeping the whole yourself.

I know that semantically you can also "share information", and you lose nothing by doing it. But my point is that maybe most people associate sharing with "losing a bit to give to someone else" instead of just "letting know".

I am thinking hard and haven't come up with a better word, I admit it, but maybe there is actually a better word for describing that "electronic share" action?

The bullhorn looks promising, but like someone said, it looks like an axe is too small. And also someone else said it would have to be different enough from a volume icon.

Maybe two hands apart, one with a piece of "the whole" and the other hand with the other piece?

In that regard I liked the Android icon a lot, even though it's a bit too abstract. But it conveys the idea that you just multiplied the information, without losing anything yourself. Maybe a diagram of an "information bus" could work? like a straight horizontal line with a perpendicular line protuding from it, indicating that you keep going but still produced a new path/road/source?

Edit: added clarification

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#22
Is there a meaningful difference between share and upload any more? "I have something on my device, I want to put it somewhere else" is how that icon is used in iOS and OSX, and for almost all of my use cases, that seems to be correct.

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#23
I feel like if somebody did what Apple did for the cloud icon (i.e., came up with a canonical geometric representation[1]) to the 'Graph Diagram'[2] mentioned in the article, then you'd find that everyone would just wind up using that.

[1] http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ThereIsOnlyOneCloudIconInTheEn...

[2] https://bold.pixelapse.com/minming/share-the-icon-no-one-agr...

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#25
Not a fan of icons with a grid or connected dots. To me that means "viral." Usually I don't care whether the video goes viral, I just want my friends to see it, a one-to-many connection. How about a megaphone?

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#26
Rather than "Share", read the action as "Send to".

This clarifies the author's preference for icons with the arrows, fits with the usual mix of upload/post-to-social-app/open-in-other-app actions, and removes the motivation for the somewhat out-of-place milkshake icon.

(You can keep the 'share' label for marketing purposes if you want...)

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#27
post #22

Is there a meaningful difference between share and upload any more? "I have something on my device, I want to put it somewhere else" is how that icon is used in iOS and OSX, and for almost all of my use cases, that seems to be correct.

I agree. I remember on the Newton there was one button that then listed all the ways you could send the file including mail and fax.

Re: Share: The Icon No One Agrees On

#28
post #22

Is there a meaningful difference between share and upload any more? "I have something on my device, I want to put it somewhere else" is how that icon is used in iOS and OSX, and for almost all of my use cases, that seems to be correct.

Well, for me at least the difference is that uploading implies a single destination (I know this doesn't always hold, but conceptually I think it does. Otherwise there are multiple distinct uploads)

And sharing implies multiple agents, be them on a single or multiple destinations. I know my definition doesn't seem clearcut, but I think the implication is that you could share by means of uploading or you could share without uploading anything (excepting maybe "uploading" the link to someone else), but you can also upload without sharing anything (i.e. I upload to my private server) and that's why I consider them different concepts.

Post reply on HN