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

Principles of Icon Design

uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#41

Post by grawprog »

Isamu wrote: post #33
kaetemi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The play button points at the direction the tape will roll in your cassette player. It had a very practical function once upon a time.

Wow, I completely forgot about that fact. So the play triangle was an arrow saying "tape is rolling in this direction" and fast-forward and reverse double triangles were "tape is rolling fast" in the respective directions. Did these buttons first show up on cassette players? The reel-to-reels I can think of had multi-position switches.

https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tasqz/e...

Here's an interesting reddit discussion about it with an image of an older style play button.

And an older more in depth discussion on the same thing

http://www.stackprinter.com/export?service=ux.stackexchange&...

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#43

Post by jkoberg »

If you're designing your own icons, you already failed. But, masturbation is pleasurable.

I wonder if this "designer" realizes that the car dashboard icons are internationally standardized, and companies DO NOT redesign them.

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#44

Post by jkoberg »

krm01 wrote: post #9

In the 10+ years I've been running a UI/UX design firm for software companies, I've come to the conclusion that icon design, is not very different from logo design and brand design. A Nike swish logo by itself, without context of the brand we have with it today, is just a random piece of graphic. The pixels itself are worth practically nothing. But because when we see the Nike logo, we feel something (Athleticism, mo…

The Play button is internationally standardized in ISO/IEC 18035, as well. Using your own icons confuses users.

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#45

Post by jkoberg »

jjoonathan wrote: post #37
DagAgren wrote: post #32

I've started strongly leaning towards the principle that if I have to choose between either an icon or text on a button, I will choose text. Icons are nice landmarks to guide the eye, but they are absolutely worthless to convey information or to find functions that you do not already have muscle memory for. Text is clearer, and the varying word shapes and lengths gives the eye a lot to work with already for locating…

Yes! This was exactly the consensus in desktop app UX circles before mobile UX popularized "hamburger menu and heiroglyph" design, which intentionally sacrifices legibility to obtain screen space. It's unfortunate that many designers these days often jump for hamburgers and heiroglyphs in circumstances where that sacrifice doesn't make sense.

Turns out "designers" are not very creative or thoughtful, and mostly copy "trends"

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#46

Post by jkoberg »

warpech wrote: post #8

The author has criticised the design of the "electric power steering system warning light" icon without suggesting a better alternative. What's the point of criticizing then? Some concepts are easier to depict literally, others are not. The most important part about the car icons is the color: an orange icon means you can go, a red icon means you must immediately stop.

And, these icons adhere to international standards. They are not just "made up" to suit a designer's whim.

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#47

Post by dspillett »

kaetemi wrote: post #19
krm01 wrote: post #9

In the 10+ years I've been running a UI/UX design firm for software companies, I've come to the conclusion that icon design, is not very different from logo design and brand design. A Nike swish logo by itself, without context of the brand we have with it today, is just a random piece of graphic. The pixels itself are worth practically nothing. But because when we see the Nike logo, we feel something (Athleticism, mo…

The play button points at the direction the tape will roll in your cassette player. It had a very practical function once upon a time.

And some tape decks supported playing the other side of the cassette without flipping, so had a second play button with the arrow reversed, or for those that did it automatically, one button with both arrows.

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#49

Post by pcurve »

DagAgren wrote: post #32

I've started strongly leaning towards the principle that if I have to choose between either an icon or text on a button, I will choose text. Icons are nice landmarks to guide the eye, but they are absolutely worthless to convey information or to find functions that you do not already have muscle memory for. Text is clearer, and the varying word shapes and lengths gives the eye a lot to work with already for locating…

Gmail had disastrous ui change many years ago where they replaced most text buttons with icons. They had to backpedal quickly. With that said, there's some benefit to icon. If there's third choice of using icon and text together (for certain actions), I'd use the combo.

Re: Principles of Icon Design

#50

Post by thedirt0115 »

Isamu wrote: post #33
kaetemi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The play button points at the direction the tape will roll in your cassette player. It had a very practical function once upon a time.

Wow, I completely forgot about that fact. So the play triangle was an arrow saying "tape is rolling in this direction" and fast-forward and reverse double triangles were "tape is rolling fast" in the respective directions. Did these buttons first show up on cassette players? The reel-to-reels I can think of had multi-position switches.

"They first appeared as tape transport symbols on reel-to-reel tape decks during the mid-1960s." See https://gizmodo.com/the-secret-histories-of-those-ing-comput..., which is linked to from this article which you may also find interesting: https://medium.com/@mwichary/the-ghost-tech-in-todays-langua...
Post reply on HN