Why icons often interfere with convenience, although they look beautiful
Just watched a wonderful video , which shows the answer to the question from the famous viral video clip “Some people and Expert” (about seven red perpendicular lines).
Changes in the interface of Youtube were evident. And since I often encounter such a problem, I decided to make a post about it.
The problem is quite simple. Who does not want to read - see a quick analysis of the innovations on YouTube , as well as an example with icons without labels and with them (and make sure the title of the post), and so please under the cat.
So, the post is dedicated to designers who like to do “beautifully” and only then think about convenience. If you have not read “Do not make me think” by Steve Krug, I highly recommend it. Simple and understandable examples explain why the law “95% of total shit” also applies to interfaces.
')
Specifically, today I want to talk about the icons. My personal opinion, which, according to numerous data from practical experience of implementing various systems in the work and launch of projects, is the place to be, such. Blank, unlabeled icons have a very limited scope. By the way, many experts in this area think so - see English articles about research, for example, Myth: Icons enhance usability (I recommend the whole site) or Icon Usability .
1. Icons, as a rule, appeal to imagination and associations. But if I say the word "table", then one will imagine an office table, the second - home, and the third may think about a buffet. Due to the ambiguity of interpretation, people need to strain more, they make more mistakes - as a result, the site seems to be less easy to use.
2. Icons often require additional resources in the process. With a few exceptions, like Font Awesome
3. Replacing icons takes much more time than replacing text labels.
4. Icons can create problems with copyright holders, as they are subject to copyright.
1. If this is a well-established concept within an audience that works with the project and does not show a decrease in the effectiveness of implementation on typical user stories. Like an “envelope” icon for a letter in a mail client, for example, or a pencil.
2. Along with text labels explaining the icon.
3. When it is simply impossible otherwise. For example, in MS Office or Photoshop. Icons allow you to get used to the standard features and get quick access to a lot of, rather than it would be a menu or text buttons. True, it is worth noting that it is important to use the habits of users (just remember your feelings when changing previous versions of the Office).
4. When considerations of beauty meet the main task of the project, site or application, and stand above convenience. Any promotional sites, or branded items.
5. Perhaps I forgot something, and someone will tell in the comments.
In all other cases, the emphasis on the icons, as a result of the emphasis on the graphic component, and not on the convenience of working with the product, not on usability, dramatically reduces work efficiency. What we can observe, unfortunately, is everywhere in IT.
Changes in the interface of Youtube were evident. And since I often encounter such a problem, I decided to make a post about it.
The problem is quite simple. Who does not want to read - see a quick analysis of the innovations on YouTube , as well as an example with icons without labels and with them (and make sure the title of the post), and so please under the cat.
So, the post is dedicated to designers who like to do “beautifully” and only then think about convenience. If you have not read “Do not make me think” by Steve Krug, I highly recommend it. Simple and understandable examples explain why the law “95% of total shit” also applies to interfaces.
')
Specifically, today I want to talk about the icons. My personal opinion, which, according to numerous data from practical experience of implementing various systems in the work and launch of projects, is the place to be, such. Blank, unlabeled icons have a very limited scope. By the way, many experts in this area think so - see English articles about research, for example, Myth: Icons enhance usability (I recommend the whole site) or Icon Usability .
Why you should not rely on icons without inscriptions
1. Icons, as a rule, appeal to imagination and associations. But if I say the word "table", then one will imagine an office table, the second - home, and the third may think about a buffet. Due to the ambiguity of interpretation, people need to strain more, they make more mistakes - as a result, the site seems to be less easy to use.
2. Icons often require additional resources in the process. With a few exceptions, like Font Awesome
3. Replacing icons takes much more time than replacing text labels.
4. Icons can create problems with copyright holders, as they are subject to copyright.
In which cases, in my opinion, should icons be used
1. If this is a well-established concept within an audience that works with the project and does not show a decrease in the effectiveness of implementation on typical user stories. Like an “envelope” icon for a letter in a mail client, for example, or a pencil.
2. Along with text labels explaining the icon.
3. When it is simply impossible otherwise. For example, in MS Office or Photoshop. Icons allow you to get used to the standard features and get quick access to a lot of, rather than it would be a menu or text buttons. True, it is worth noting that it is important to use the habits of users (just remember your feelings when changing previous versions of the Office).
4. When considerations of beauty meet the main task of the project, site or application, and stand above convenience. Any promotional sites, or branded items.
5. Perhaps I forgot something, and someone will tell in the comments.
In all other cases, the emphasis on the icons, as a result of the emphasis on the graphic component, and not on the convenience of working with the product, not on usability, dramatically reduces work efficiency. What we can observe, unfortunately, is everywhere in IT.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/232491/
All Articles