[omnimus]

It doesn't actually matter that much what the icon is. It's impossible to creat icons people would fully understand - otherwise you wouldn't need a label at all.

The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).

There are other factors like consistent placement that can help. This icon approach is good especially if you have common shared menu items over the OS or they change their placement throughout the app.

[VBprogrammer]

The IKEA instructions are generally regarded as a triumph of simplicity. Yet on more than one occasion I've come across cases where a few words in a call out would have prevented having to redo some step after later realising that some features had to be oriented a particular way - the pictures not quite conveying their intention until it was obvious in hindsight.

[busywaiting]

> The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).

In theory, yes. But if you look at the examples in the article, the shapes are basically all similarly-sized circles.

In the Apple example, "System Settings" is circle (A gear with barely discernible teeth.) "Recent Items" is a circle (a clock.) "Force Quit" is a circle (a rounded! octagon.) "Sleep" is...a circle with a line through the bottom third. "Log Out" is...a human silhouette in a circle! (Why?)

It doesn't matter what the icon is as long as the icons are distinct, and today's icons aren't.

[ndespres]

Others have brought up the Office 97 style for good reason. Everything has an icon, on an icon toolbar. Every command can also be on a file menu but most of them there don’t have an icon. The ones that do are special or intended to draw your attention.

And there’s a consistent metaphor: for example the web browser is represented by a globe for the world wide web. So the “hyperlink” function is a globe with a chain. This the “preview as web page” is a globe with a magnifying glass (whereas the print preview command is a sheet of paper with a magnifying glass.).

This icon language hints at function through its form and helps serve as a cue, a reminder, or a visual representation of its function.

And it all worked on 640x480 256 color screens. They are thoughtful and useful. These plain flat uninformative icons are just rude.

[omnimus]

Sure. There are also icons that are plain flat and don't use metaphor and work great. Play, share, hamburger, bluetooth, power... i am sure there are more. Icons are more about familiarity than anything.

I assume you were very familiar with Office 97. I can tell you people born in 97 are probably not. High chance they might not like and understand the icons because they aren't familiar with them.

It's like when everybody wants to design logo as unforgettable as Nike. But in reality anything people see 20 times a day people will remember.

[troupo]

> The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).

I wrote it in a different comment elsewhere: this is exactly why you don't want icons on every menu item. When everything tries to be stand out, nothing does. It's much easier to distinguish groups and "it's the third item below the icon" than "out of these identical looking icons one of them points to a menu item that does what I want".

[omnimus]

Sure! I agree. My comment above probably seems like i think this new Apple design direction is good. I don't. Tahoe seems like amateur hour.

What i was mainly saying is that the icon does not have to describe the label for it to be effective. That doesn't mean that usage/quality of the icon suddenly doesn't matter.