[rorykoehler]

Every time any major corp redesigns something it's the same old drivel on here. It's very predictable and imo flat out wrong. Design is subjective and everyone thinks their opinion is the right one when the reality is there is no right or wrong.

[dingaling]

> when the reality is there is no right or wrong.

Perhaps not in absolute terms but certainly there are degrees of objective correctness.

These new icons are like a door with a pull handle but a push sign. They add unnecessary mental load, directly undermining their purpose which is to be non-verbal methods of identifying something. Surely that's 'wrong" to some degree?

[chrstphrknwtn]

Taste is subjective, but design can be objectively critiqued. Graphic design exists to change behaviour, and in this case the behaviour is to use apps based on recognition of a sign/symbol/icon.

In this case it seems reasonable to suggest that similar colour and shape is a poor design choice.

[rorykoehler]

I don't have trouble differentiating them. They also share a brand look and feel which is clearly what they were going for. I would question how good they are for people with visual impairment however this is probably a secondary concern for the designers. All the conversations here relate to taste not UX as far as I can tell. We don't have the data Google has to make UX observations.

[scsilver]

One thing I love about accounting for accessibility is that it applies to everyone. A rotating door can be used by a person without a hand, or a person with a coffee cup and a cellphone in each hand. With these changes, I will absolutely click the wrong app, I will click the wrong ones more when I am tired, or my screen brightness is low.

Hopefully an accessbility setting can help here.

[hawski]

For a long time now I see it in myself and other's around me (like my father, my in-laws, my wife), that icons do not work. Icons change too much and every app has its own set of icons, all of them highly abstract to the point of meaninglessness. Almost every Skype call with my in-laws has a non-trivial percentage dedicated to troubleshooting. They use it for years now and lately my father in-law started using YouTube almost every day, they still have problems with those pesky icons.

When I have to help one of them via phone or the Internet it's always a recital of trying to describe the icon, that they are supposed to click. I always have to tell either "third from the left", or "a rectangle with a triangle". If it's a text button it usually is simple, they can even enumerate the buttons.

Try helping someone without intimate knowledge of the thing they use or without visual aid and tell me that icons work.

[scsilver]

Some aspects of design are subjective, some are more objective. Accessibility is an aspect thay can be objectively tested. You can test how easy a door handle makes it for abled humans, differently abled humans, velociraptors to open. However how pleasing that door handle is too look at is very subjective. I am having a hard time grasping these door handles. Its harder to differentiate and identify between the apps in the suite. It dose look more cohesive though, which engenders a sense of trust in the branding. Im not sure google really needs to forgo accessibility for cohesive branding like this. Just give me some identifying colors back.