Re:The Apple Goes Mushy Part I: OS X's Interface Decline
by yoz-y on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @11:46AM
(#12166427)
By iconic I meant represented by an object associated with an activity that has the most meaning. (I have some difficulty phrasing this)
For example, in the current world maybe 10% of the people are taking pictures with actual cameras but we still represent the camera as a "box with a huge lens". Few people use land lines but the phone icon is still a banana. To send and e-mail in general we use an envelope but we send way more electronic messages than snail mail.
Re:The Apple Goes Mushy Part I: OS X's Interface Decline
by dpark on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @12:15PM
(#12166664)
In that case, yes, I think icons should be "iconic" when possible. At this point, the "most used" version of basically every app is unsurprisingly an app. The phone app is used more than landline phones (or dumb cell phones). The camera app is used more than dedicated cameras. Word processors are probably used more than paper and pen.
So you either use something "iconic", or every icon is just a small screenshot, or I guess you make something up that is meaningless.
I don't know what you mean by "iconic". If you mean "abstract and without independently-identifiable meaning", then I think in general, no. Icons should be immediately identifiable when possible. The overlapping rainbow paint chips that make up the current photos icon seems utterly meaningless. The camera was meaningful. A stack of photos would be meaningful. An abstracted "photo" like Windows 10 uses (and like Google uses in the sidebar of their online photos app) would be meaningful.
For the record, I think Android/Google's photos icon is also utterly meaningless to most people. I think it's supposed to represent a camera aperture (same as Apple's icon?), but most people probably don't know what a mechanical aperture is.