[Bad_Initialism]

As the icons progress to the left, identification increasingly depends on colour and shape. Since there are a limited number of colours and shapes, they tend to get reused. This increasingly leads to mis-identification of icons.

This is particularly true for the visually impaired and some elderly and neuro-atypical people.

What matters in an icon is uniqueness. Only the skeuomorphic icons to the right can be unique enough for proper identification.

Trendiness of visual appearance has no place in the functionality of a complex machine. If you think it does, I submit the following for your consideration: you. are. a. monster.

Yes, I said that and I mean it. You followers of Jony Ive and his ilk are assholes. The rest of us don't give a shit about your design schools. We just want to be able to click on the right thing.

Hate me, but it's true.

[anonymous908213]

> identification increasingly depends on colour and shape.

If only they would stop there. These design terrorists won't even let us have that much; Google's Android apps all use the same 4-color-rainbow scheme. Not only did they get rid of the ability to visually identify the icons by color, but you can't even really identify them by shape because applying four highly constrasting colors to a simple shape breaks up its silhouette into something that is not quickly recognisable at a glance. It's as though they're intentionally trying to make the icons have as little functional utility as they possibly can.

[hliyan]

The worst part is, when computer screens were monochrome or had only 16 colors, (and perhaps 16 pixels a side) to work with, designers managed to create more distinct icons or pictograms. Perhaps they may not have looked as elegant as a set of items on a collector's display case, but they helped the end user quickly zero in on the part of the screen they were interested in.

[packetlost]

Google's icons are actively hostile to usability. I honestly found myself using their apps less because I couldn't pick the one I wanted out from the rainbow soup.

[quitit]

Google's icons are basically just different shapes of the same rainbow camouflage.

While I agree that Google's is not a good approach, that is not what has gone on here.

[Washuu]

> This is particularly true for the visually impaired and some elderly and neuro-atypical people.

The Slack and (Google) Photos icons on Android look so visually similar in the sea of green, blue, red, and yellow icons on Android that I frequently open the wrong application. Using my phone sucks.

[opan]

Not sure if this will help you, but I keep just one homescreen page with my most-used apps on it, and I've developed muscle memory for all of them. When I set up a new device, I put the same apps in the same spots. Other than the inherent inaccuracy of touchscreens, I could probably open any of them blindly. I also only fill up the bottom half or so of the screen, so they're all easy enough to reach.

[pastor_williams]

I don't know if you can change the icons with the default launcher, but you can with Nova Launcher. I changed pocket's icon to a taco. Not to make it visually distinct but because the placement of the icon on the background made it look like it was going into someone's mouth and I thought it was funny. Anyway, opportunities exist to improve your phone experience without needing to depend on Google to come to its senses.

[casey2]

It's not true. This is just a natural process in technology. Look at oracle bone script. Over time people simplify for expedience, but only because they knew what came before.

Here simplification is used to increase the set of people who understand the meaning of the symbol. Understanding the meaning of a symbol is the foundation of language. I'm sorry you are disabled, but you are the monster for trying to hoist your disability onto everyone else.