Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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 about user speed.



>I'm much faster at quickly spotting an icon

Using the label-less example in the article with the 10x10 monochrome icons I doubt many other people feel the same.


> 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


I think it is important to stress that both, color _and_ shape should be visible distinctive, and as you say it is important that the color palette is chosen in a way that even if the color does not stand out for a the color-blind person, the contrast stays visible.

Making everything monochrome is surly not more accessible, because there sure are people who find it easier to distinguish by color than shape.


Why in the world would colors discomfort you if you can't discern between them? Icons have until recently always been color coded. That doesn't make them a problem for the color-blind. You can look at the shape of the icons and read the text next to them. Would a pedestrian traffic light be better if it wasn't color coded? Would a white car be preferable to a red car?


> Why in the world would colors discomfort you if you can't discern between them?

Because pretty much as soon as one starts colour coding items in the UI, people start using the specific colours to encode meaning. If your UI requires someone to discern between the red and green versions of the same icon in your UI twice, congrats, you just lost 8% of male users!

> Would a pedestrian traffic light be better if it wasn't color coded?

If they weren't colour-coded, they would have to be differentiated by shape, and then when I traveled to Canada, I wouldn't have to guess whether the fancy horizontal traffic lights are ordered left-to-right or right-to-left

> Would a white car be preferable to a red car?

Even fully colour-sighted folks can't see red very well at night, so yes, white car > red car


Personal anecdote re the traffic lights: I thought "green light" was a metaphor until sometime my twenties, when a friend explained that the 3rd light actually is green to other people. It's always been a white light to me


With that line of reasoning we arrive at the conclusion that all graphical elements of an interface should be removed, as the blind cannot see icons.

> If your UI requires someone to discern between the red and green versions of the same icon

Color coding has never been about this, only when implemented wrongly. It is just an extra differentiator for GUI elements which are already differentiated by icon shape and text labels.


> Color coding... is just an extra differentiator for GUI elements which are already differentiated by icon shape and text labels.

In principle, I agree, but I do not believe I have ever used a software package that follows this philosophy. In practice, once you give people a tool, they are inclined to use it, and most projects only try and address accessibility concerns post-ship


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


Monochrome is a strange complaint, the text is also monochrome. Regarding what most people think I don't know, I'm definitely faster at spotting a specific pictogram in the start of a line than having to read multiple lower information-density pictograms (alphabet characters) in order (reading a full word or sentence). This seems obvious to me, 1 thing is faster to parse than multiple things.


The monotone ones in Windows 11 that jump around in order or menu position (I think both of these have been addressed in 24h2 or something?) where they hop to the top or bottom of the menu or dont show so the order is wrong if they are disabled for some object are insanely bad UX.

I say this because I agree, the pictogram icon is much easier for me to find. I also like having a word there though, if they change the picture on me. If its not color, almost all bets are off, since I dont even look at the icon, just look for a color and go for it if thats available.


There was a point where a significant amount of menus in windows and office used only icons. It made it basically unusable for anyone over 60.


an icon for "save" will suffice to help me find the portion of the menu with "save as", "save a copy", and "export". when all four have the same icon, or slight variations, i'm back to reading each one to discern the difference.


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


You are right. My bad.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: