To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yeah, as much as I want to believe in the conclusion, there isn't any credible evidence here to support it.
But I love their advice for icons:
At first it seems like a great statement showing how the highly detailed icons have violated the most fundamental rule, but it really depends on what you mean by "iconic". Simple things can be iconic, but so can highly detailed things. Like images of people. Mohammad Ali ( the boxer), has several iconic poses and pictures, but I wouldn't want any of them as icons in a software setting.
This study is an example of sloppy thinking. My guess is that author tried to prove his opinion which was stated in title. Biggest sin though is that this pseudo scientific mumble can intimidate some people and make them think that author proved something.
*What are the criteria for icon classification ? ("amount of detail" is very vague)
*Where is differentiation between representations of simple and complex actions that icons are linked to.
*Where is differentiation between well known icons/actions (like "save - floppy disc") and uncommon (like "quick print - printer with lightning" and "print preview - printer with magnifying glass" - this may not be best example though :-) )
Stay skeptical!




Member since:
2005-08-29
Yes, that's what I think of this "study"..
The "study" is, as the comments on the blog page say, flawed and useless. The low-resolution icons are for common functions. The high-resolutions icons are for not so common functions.
Also, there's a low resolution for save, but no high resolution icon for the same function.
You can't make a serious conclusion from this "study".