Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

blog.jim-nielsen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 340 posts

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#221

Post by nottorp »

thiht wrote: post #174
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the rule of thumb is that: if the pictogram is always same, then as in Shannon's model, it conveys no information, and thus is decorative. Discard it. One of first programs that put pictograms in menus was Microsoft Word. But the way Word did it was entirely different from what we do now. Microsoft Word had toolbars and their buttons, of course, were mostly pictorial. Toolbars could be turned on and off and users…

> thus is decorative. Discard it. Or keep it since decoration makes interfaces feel more alive. Not everything NEEDS to be useful

> Not everything NEEDS to be useful

... until the not-useful becomes distracting and/or causes information overload.

In the case of Apple, I've been a user of the Accessibility menu ever since they introduced the stupid parallax wiggling of the icons. Right now i use: reduce motion, bold text and reduce transparency. Because I want to see what I'm looking for when using the phone and not squint through pointless effects.

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#222

Post by alansaber »

albert_e wrote: post #219

Back in the day MS office applications had toolbars (instead of ribbon) Toolbars could be customized. You could select any item from any menu and place it on toolbar for quick access. So unique icons for every menu option were useful. Even now i think MS office has a quick access toolbar on top that can be customized that way. Tad limited.

I agree with this. Consistency > immediate design beauty

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#223

Post by ACCount37 »

20k wrote: post #183
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the rule of thumb is that: if the pictogram is always same, then as in Shannon's model, it conveys no information, and thus is decorative. Discard it. One of first programs that put pictograms in menus was Microsoft Word. But the way Word did it was entirely different from what we do now. Microsoft Word had toolbars and their buttons, of course, were mostly pictorial. Toolbars could be turned on and off and users…

Pictograms let you parse a lot of information at a glance, because you can pattern match a group of differing symbols much faster than you can a block of text which all looks uniform. It lets you skip reading all the text when you're familiar with a dialogue, and you can short circuit what you need to click on without having to read That's the reason why pictographic additions are so useful. Its the reason why we dis…

This. If I'm out looking for a "Save" button, I'm going to pattern match "ancient disk icon" without even thinking about it.

It's also the reason why some menu entries get icons and others don't.

If the icon doesn't convey information by itself (like a "move to top" icon example), then it's there as a visual anchor - and you don't really need to have 4 of the same "delete" icon if a menu has 4 different "delete" options next to each other. Just one is enough of an anchor to draw your attention to the "delete group", and having just one keeps the visual noise low.

Likewise, you don't need visual anchors for every single option - just the commonly used ones, the ones you expect people to be looking for, and the ones that already have established pictography.

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#224

Post by alansaber »

eviks wrote: post #158
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #143

Pictograms in the interface are not decoration. Their purpose is to convey information in limited space. (The information should be that could be conveyed this way.) Currently they are often used as decorations or these two uses are mixed up. This is a mistake. (It is interesting and saddening to see how years of UI research just went down the drain after Apple "resurrection". In my impression Apple was the first tha…

> Their purpose is to convey information in limited space. No, that's only one of their purposes. Another one is faster visual parsing of shape recognition instead of reading even if space is not an issue (just like with all of these menus, they waste so much space on padding they could fit command names 3 more times)

Nothing more addictive than adding more padding

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#225

Post by j45 »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #143

Pictograms in the interface are not decoration. Their purpose is to convey information in limited space. (The information should be that could be conveyed this way.) Currently they are often used as decorations or these two uses are mixed up. This is a mistake. (It is interesting and saddening to see how years of UI research just went down the drain after Apple "resurrection". In my impression Apple was the first tha…

Limited space seems like a surprising thing to lean on, especially when put next to a text label, with the increase pixel count/resolution on devices over the last 5-10-15 years.

Words create better beginners than icons alone.

UI/UX can evolve as the baseline digital literacy of users evolves usually very slowly, to remain maximally inclusive.

One thing that I'd consider is start with text labels, and the more they are used, start showing an icon. Just hold a left bar for them to start appearing so that learning can happen.

The screenshot where there was only some menu items with icons feels more memorable for that reason.

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#226

Post by rpns »

This is what the Windows Vista/7-era UX guidelines say/said on on the matter:

Consider providing menu item icons for:

- The most commonly used menu items.

- Menu items whose icon is standard and well known.

- Menu items whose icon well illustrates what the command does.

If you use icons, don't feel obligated to provide them for all menu items. Cryptic icons aren't helpful, create visual clutter, and prevent users from focusing on the important menu items.

From: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/cmd-...

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#227

Post by ragazzina »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #149
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #143

Pictograms in the interface are not decoration. Their purpose is to convey information in limited space. (The information should be that could be conveyed this way.) Currently they are often used as decorations or these two uses are mixed up. This is a mistake. (It is interesting and saddening to see how years of UI research just went down the drain after Apple "resurrection". In my impression Apple was the first tha…

So the rule of thumb is that: if the pictogram is always same, then as in Shannon's model, it conveys no information, and thus is decorative. Discard it. One of first programs that put pictograms in menus was Microsoft Word. But the way Word did it was entirely different from what we do now. Microsoft Word had toolbars and their buttons, of course, were mostly pictorial. Toolbars could be turned on and off and users…

> if the pictogram is always same, then as in Shannon's model, it conveys no information, and thus is decorative. Discard it.

If the text on the button is always the same, then as in Shannon's model, it conveys no information, and thus is decorative. Discard it. Just use the position.

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#228

Post by kergonath »

swiftcoder wrote: post #178
stanac wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 10x10 monochrome icons I don't mind the size, but lack of colors is annoying. If common icons where color-coded, like green to save, blue to download/print/export, red to delete, UI would be friendlier to use.

> If common icons where color-coded... UI would be friendlier to use As a colour-blind person, this sounds like accessibility hell. Don't forget your UIs still need to be friendly in what amounts to monochrome

And also in some cultural contexts in which red and green do not carry the same meanings.

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#229

Post by vasco »

Propelloni wrote: post #196
vasco wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, pictures are easier to remember than words and I'm much faster (several hundred miliseconds) at quickly spotting an icon in the 12th place down a list and clicking it because I memorized it visually than reading the actual words. So icons make power users faster. It's not "clutter". Your argument about "don't use it for aesthetics" is ironic because you're making it because of aesthetics. For me it's abou…

Speak for yourself. I remember words. That disk icon stands for "Save". "Save" is what I remember. I also remember location, but the spatial component applies independent from icons or words.

> Speak for yourself

>> I'm much faster

Re: Icons in Menus Everywhere – Send Help

#230

Post by Bengalilol »

The first Google example is a nice one: You could have only one icon for each group (one trash for all the 'delete' actions', one share icon for all the 'share / download' actions, etc). That would be really helpful, for what it is worth.

Globally, I had a pleasant time reading this article which was way too dedicated to something that is almost invisible in its current state (ie: I don't notice those icons and surely think they aren't _that_ helpful for any type of user unless used in a rare way).

Post reply on HN