What's Wrong with the iOS 7 Icons?
ianstormtaylor.com
ianstormtaylor.com
Using ONLY color to differentiate clickable things is a travesty for colorblind people. I'm colorblind and iOS 7 is proving really frustrating.
The weather app, for example, is almost impossible for me to read.
It's a shame too because they added a lot of good things like the new notifications layout, Siri improvements, control pane slide-out, etc.
Don't like Mission Control? Too bad, get used to it. Want Google Maps back after Apple pushed their maps too soon? Sorry, your stuck with Apple maps. Bad cell reception? You're just holding your phone wrong.
There are many examples like this. I've seen many people say something along the lines of, "oh don't worry, this is just beta, it will all be better when it is released." It may, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Google Maps? Google didn't want to license their data without Apple giving them location data. Apple can't force Google to let them use Google's data. The next best thing was Google Maps on the App Store, which his what happened.
Bad cell reception? Sort of a silly example, given they provided video examples on their site of every other major cell phone sold at the time exhibiting that behavior. However, they gave out free bumpers and extended the return period if it was an issue worthy of return. Also, they redesigned the phone _on the very next release_, the Verizon iPhone 4. This was unheard of at the time, and to this time, core hardware usually doesn't change on the *S releases, much less before then.
You can continue to enumerate the many examples you know like this (sic), if you'd like.
It took quite a bit of community anger for them to get to this point. They spent a lot of effort doing the "you're just holding it wrong" angle first. The issue isn't that they fixed it by doing -foo-, it's that they considered the fault to be in the user, not their design.
The whole brouhaha in the armchair designer community over icons, colors & design is simply nuts though. "Designers" are coming out of the woodwork in droves to prove that they can do better in 1 hour what Johny Ives & Co took many months to do.
Now, some time later, it's disappointing to see that Apple Maps fails to work well in a lot of places. I'm not so sure this says anything about Apple per se, or is more of a testament to just how advanced Google's technology is.
Edit: Also just a comment along the lines of your second paragraph... it's crazy that Apple Maps still can't find the News Corp. building in Manhattan (at least by that well-known name). It's a building that I noticed it couldn't find at launch and continually checked for over the months just to take the temperature of Apple's data updates. Still nothing.
(Not my picture, someone posted this on the last days and I shared it with a few friends so I still had the link.)
In a sane world, iOS 7's graphic design decisions alone would already have knocked ten billion dollars off of AAPL's market cap. Slavishly copying the people who slavishly copied you in the last round is not the way forward.
You are absolutely free to think the font choice is poor and that the existence of that option proves it, but you should not use the accessibility menu as your rationalization excuse.
Thank you for classifying me as "not good enough."
Please note that I never mentioned the design choices being discussed, I may love or hate the font but it’s irrelevant to my point.
Edit: Here's an example of the lock screen going hilariously wrong: http://i.imgur.com/pZhkpmC.jpg
But even when it's just the default green background the text is hard to read at a glance.
Perhaps it has to do with your display brightness/contrast?
But that's just because you only see them now over that one image. After you've seen them with the background (album art?) changed, you'd know immediately what it is and where.
I do assume that the album artwork will be repositioned or some other measures will be taken before release though, given how egregious the issues are (specifically regarding the album artwork). I'm less hopeful that they'll add a layer between the text and background as in the old version, or just a text shadow or outline, but that is what they ought to do.
Sure, but only having seen the image and not the UI live, I don't know if they change the date/time colours when the background image changes to whiter. Perhaps they do?
Unfortunately, even if they did that, it would not alleviate issues where there is too much detail in the background (as in a photo or perhaps some abstract art design). In that case the text would still be difficult or impossible to read, regardless of color, since it would blend into all that detail.
My eyes just can't take this. I'm not colorblind but I do need reading glasses. I wiped the iOS Gmail app just because the contrast gave me headaches.
You might click "Increase text legibility".
I'm stoked for this ability for some relatives who's otherwise whip out reading glasses for email.
The weather app isn't in "iOS7" default style and is a little hard to read for normal trichromates. And honestly, if only the weather app is crap, not like there aren't 203948203498 weather apps.
Are any of the other apps hard for you to read? I know I'm constantly checking contrast/colorblind appearance in apps from designers who don't necessarily look at designs with CB people in mind.
Invert colors almost certainly will fix things if all else fails, but I suspect "enhance text legibility" or "increase font size" will do the trick for 99% of apps.
Because Apple's use of colour to identify links is identical to 90% of the sites I visit daily.
(im kidding)
Have you filed Radars on these problems? If not, please file Radars immediately.
Really, though, I do not like almost any of the new icons. I love the flat thing, and I reskinned my Android phone with the minimal MIUI icon set (quite well done), but Apple just did it wrong.
It's hard to believe that there's any other reason the icons look this way other than through intention. And then the question becomes about Apple's taste level.
Perhaps this will enlighten you.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672819/who-designed-ios-7-s-ico...
So, something on a blog on the internet is now "enlightenment" ?
*edit. I found this link quoted in other places in this thread. Turns out all of them were you. What makes you believe that information there is fact ?
1. Experience: I've worked on design teams that did not suffer from incoherent, committee driven management, and others that did. This attuned me to the signature patterns that both approaches inevitably imprint on their products.
2. Direct Observation: Like everyone else, I can see the work for myself. If you know what to look for, it's not hard to recognize the tell-tale signs of a badly directed, poorly managed process.
3. Judgement: Being familiar with the work and reputation of the publication, I consider them a reasonably reliable source of sound reporting. The fact that their account dovetails with my own experience lends credence to the story. I can also see that that account they're providing could be easily falsified if it were untrue (making this an unlikely place to stretch the truth).
4. General Knowledge: I am aware that Ive is new to this kind of design, and relatively inexperienced. I am also aware that having good taste isn't enough. Only the combination of good taste and long practice will produce desirable results. In his defense, he's having to develop expertise quickly, under a spotlight. I sympathise with his struggles. At the same time, knowing that the company is going through a major transition means that missteps like these aren't unexpected. Indeed, it would be astonishing if they nailed it on the first try.
They're explicitly showcasing their new icons, and I thought that was clear when they played the animation that morphs through all icons on the WWDC.
I've been using a shell for many years (doesn't matter which - can't even recall name now) which comes with its own icons. So to me this sounds as childish (ie Apple treating its customers as children who can't be trusted with picking their own icons) - as if my laptop had a set of preconfigured directory names and I could not rename them myself.
It's rather telling that all these people take the concept that icons on their pocket computer are G-d given and immutable, like a law of nature and that the most they can do is whine if they don't like them.
If Google ran its ship the same way with regard to hammering UI guidelines down everyone's throat, this would likely happen there as well. I don't know which is better or worse, but the two are certainly different, and it's either created a divide or pointed out a difference between people who strongly prefer one over the other.
What I find funny is that the people who are writing these articles are advanced users and not some grandmother who needs protection. Ie - if you are either a designer who deeply cares about how your icons look - don't be a sheep and customize your pocket computer the way you want.
1. Allow new users to guess at the functionality of apps before tapping them. This is important for first impressions (like trying out the phone at the store before buying it).
2. Allow current users to quickly and reliably navigate to the app they intend to use.
It seems to me that instead of arguing about skeuomorphism, there should just be some good old A/B testing for these two use cases. And whatever wins is best. Maybe Apple has done this, maybe not.
It clearly isn't now, as iOS 7 is hilariously inconsistent with itself even within a single screen.
Random examples:
https://lh5.ggpht.com/mKx3_D9fhszXZ3A-03zI5qsKi4yiecWo8i1jm_...
https://lh5.ggpht.com/nENqr4mCerIwGYtbn6lAhaWSE7P1itMRp_A5yL...
https://lh6.ggpht.com/T7nxYYhpmGDzg5Ckwu3L7Jb4HTHyKdGoz0n2u1...
https://lh6.ggpht.com/os72icmFlDtbxpYbZCP-v6kOereSLGDmlKsBl1...
https://lh6.ggpht.com/H_b-56TTd9bE-TOx13irsriNiqHCHijeaEcSaf...
The icon is a perfect representation of the game. I don't have to guess what it might be.
I chose icons I consider good looking. If you think they are ugly, that is a subjective matter. Also keep in mind that they are displayed much smaller on the screen.
The point I was trying to imply is that icons can much better represent their app if they are not forced to abide to a standard of shape or style.
The change to the camera icon makes a lot of sense if you've ever watched a first-time phone user looking for the Camera app.
Differences between music, video and photos again seems to emphasize their very different bodies of users. They actually do very different things because they service very different needs—people who buy music in iTunes or pirate it (as opposed to using Pandora, etc.), people who buy movies in iTunes or pirate them (as opposed to using HBO Go), and people who want to show their photos to someone. None of these use cases require personality and it seems like putting personality in a software icon meant to be universally understood is a bad idea.
Apple's always had quality control issues, but when the main theme of the keynote is iOS 7's new look, and the first thing they show you are those icons, it makes me think that they are having serious execution issues.
Even if they improve them later (one can hope), it's a lost chance to wow us, which has always been Apple's thing and the whole reason for the keynote.
I agree 100000% on the Videos icon. It's a relic: when every Mac user was a pro video-maker using video-editing tools every day, I guess it made sense to keep it consistent. I don't come from that background, so that icon never felt natural; I agree that a "Play button" would be so much better.
The idea of making icons dynamic is great and would go some way towards compensating for the lack of real-time home-screen apps. Newsstand proves that it can be done, and Apple should probably use it a bit more, battery be damned. There is a risk in opening such an API to third parties, that developers will start blinkifying their icons to jump at you, transforming one's home screen in a giant flashy billboard; but it would certainly be a nice touch for homegrown system icons.
I don't want 'photos' to show me the latest photo I took as that could have been days ago and now finding the photos app is really difficult.
But if just part of the icon changed to indicate something, like your stock folio position (without the red/green background idea) then it works both ways. The icon always looks generally the same - it's a graph - but it changes to indicate some data point that may save opening the app.
That said, how would the icons update if you don't open the app. Each app's developer would either have to send out an icon update notification or would have to provide some level of running the app on a regular basis to regenerate the icon.
For example, the icon has free reign to update itself when the application is active. This would be useful for things like Newsstand, where the user purchasing new items affects the icon. But wouldn't need to be abused since the icon can't be seen while the application is active, so no one is going to blink it.
Then you could allow applications to update at a constrained interval when they aren't active as well. Except what if the amount of time required for the icon to update itself determined how often it happened. So an icon like "Clock" literally takes the tiniest sliver of time to update would be allowed to update more freely. (Clock is a bad example since even that is excessive, but you get the idea.)
Whereas an icon that needed to make an HTTP request to get new information to update itself would take 100's of milliseconds, and thus would be rate limited to only update maybe once an hour at most.
No idea if it could work technically, but it seems like an interesting solution.
No, got a link?
You're dead right about the Safari icon, though. I was always accidentally clicking it when I intended to load Maps.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Netscape_Navig...
And the new Safari icon throws that brand away, which means that everyone has to learn -again- that the skinny white compass means "browser". And that the icon is inconsistent with every use of the icon before. All things that could have been avoided while still making the icon flat.
Also, though many of the icons are a bit odd (and some, like the calculator and camera, frankly suck), upon use, iOS 7 really does feel like a natural improvement upon past version of iOS and not some attempt to make iOS more like Windows Mobile or Android.
I'm excited that Apple's shaken things up a bit visually. It'll force app makers (self included) to think in fresh ways about their interfaces. Which will lead to more novelty, innovation, and (hopefully) better products.
I think now many cross platform apps are going to start looking a lot better.
I don't understand. What is wrong with skeuomorphism? I am not a designer or anything, but I liked the old iOS 6 UI.
It also seems like there's a general trend against the concept.
But I'm not a designer as well.
Pure flat design is IMO inferior, but necessary.
Now that we know what virtual objects are about, we can move to a design scheme that's made for virtual objects.
I inherently don't like the phrase 'Flat Design' - there is so much more to this.
Sku was teaching designers to fake dimension by hand, flat will aid them to getting to the point of texturing real 3D objects. And if you think iOS7 doesn't still use 3D space to make skumorphic metaphors you haven't looked at Safari' tabs yet.
in many of the comparison screenshots of ios 6vs7 it looks like they just switched from textured background to a solid background, and left the workflow the same. Not an eschewing of skeuomorphism but a change in visual style.
I have a feeling that in a few decades we'll be looking back on the 2010s like we do the 80s and 70s, and "flat design" would be one of the trends that mark this decade.
People get stuck on the word 'skeuomorphism' here but the key word is 'unnecessary':
Find My Friends is often condemned for being too skeuomorphic. Mythbusted: Find My Friends uses standard iOS UI that is themed using custom graphics. The fine corinthian leather and stitching does not harken back to a day of fine corinthian leather products we used to use to find our friends. There is no connection to real world objects by using these materials.
To me an icon is a quick way of telling me what the app is and for lack of that (I tend to hoard apps) some clue as to what it might do. I really have to wonder if they did any tests on this. For example, show someone an icon and see how long it takes for them to correctly say what it does. Amorphous blobs just doesn't do it for me for things like Game Center.
We live in an age where flatter, more consistent UI designs are a necessity. Not flat to the point where you can't tell what the hell is going on, like Metro, but minimalist with visual cues to let you know what is happening, which is similar to Google's interface for Android and their web services.
We don't need to be reminded that games used to be played in casinos. We don't need to be reminded of how a ledger notepad with leather binding looks. We don't need to be reminded of how a bookshelf looks.
Why?
Because we don't use bookshelfs, game tables, or ledger pads on our phones.
We use digital representations of games, text, and input devices. The need to have an analog analogue is gone. And apart from the horrid icons in iOS 7, it's a step forward in every way. Except, of course, for the icons.
Did I mention the icons were awful?
There's probably some specific scope of "necessity" which would make this something other than fairly extreme hyperbole, but its certainly not one which it is obvious is the intended scope of this posting.
Now, I would agree that I like fairly flat design, and I actively dislike skeuomorphism for the sake of skeuomorphism, since it tends to add visual clutter that doesn't contribute to (and often impairs) usability.
But that's a preference (there are people that like baroque UIs, and that's not objectively wrong), not a necessity.
Which also meant that apps were actually distinguishable at a glance. You could be the slowest user ever and it was hard to miss that "yellow with lines across the page" meant Notes - on OS X, iOS and iCloud.com. There was zero disconnect between the icon and the actual app. Same for Reminders and GameCenter. iOS7 doesn't bother to develop a "mini-brand" for each app - the 'link colour' in each app is different but there aren't even enough colours for the stock apps.
Of course this branding in iOS6 could have been pulled of with fewer textures and shadows :)
Flat vs "3D" user interface elements are just a cycle of fashion.
The same thing is still true for any icon (such as the "save" floppy disk or the old-style trash can), but at least they're simple and don't require realism. They'll simply become abstract symbols that represent some actions.
I'm an absolute fan of flat design, and my favorite mobile OS is Windows Phone. However, I still prefer iOS 6 to iOS 7, if only for the look of third party apps.
The "poor color choice" Calculator, for example, his alternative is worse than iOS 7 which is worse than iOS 6. Dark keys with a colored totals key are recognizable as a calculator at a glance. No idea what his suggested alternative is smoking.
My main takeaway from this article, like the many other "here's what they should have done" write-ups is: "This is harder than it looks."
Just like the camera and other elements in the design https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5883125 the shape of the notes is a pastiche of an (I think) roughly mid-'60s commercial-art style.
And the gloss on the Game Center icon is just downright bizarre!
Well that's dramatizing more than just a little bit. Apple has $143 billion in the bank, a nearly unlimited budget, a design obsession, and they had over half a year. Clearly the time it takes to create a nice icon was not the problem (regardless of if it was 25 icons or 250 icons).
Man, this guy sounds like a real expert.
(I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone say anything about this yet. I thought designers were attuned to and familiar with things like this? It's weird to see professionals not considering any influences on the iPhone's new style apart from other smartphone OSes and skins from the past 5 years.)
Regarding the OP, Camera is fairly consistent with the other icons as it's based on the same flavour of retro. The same is true of Game Center. You can see how the colours imitate the dodgy colour values from colour printing about the '60s.
As it turns out, the latter camp is correct.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672819/who-designed-ios-7-s-ico...
Allegedly, the branding/marketing teams first designed the icons and the other teams coordinated their designs based on those icons.
I don't know if you've actually used iOS7 but there is quite clearly a direction. It's a little unfocused in places but it's clear.
"We’ve also been hearing that there wasn’t a whole lot of communication between the various teams behind say, Mail and Safari. And that there were multiple teams inside each group that were competing with various designs, leading to what some see as inconsistencies in icon design."
https://plus.google.com/+VicGundotra/posts/gcSStkKxXTw
To me, at least, the original post is all about how that level of perfectionism is no longer being enforced at Apple.
They are employed by probably the most design-sensitive company around precisely because they're at the top of their game – they won't be oblivious to blundering inconsistencies.
If it's not, it will be forgotten about within days of the OS's release by nearly all users.
I'm not such a fanboy as to believe Apple's infallible, but I do firmly believe they'll know when they've screwed up. You can bet there are plenty of people running around Apple gauging the public reaction to iOS7. If they think it's really a major pain point for the public, they'll do something about it. Otherwise, it won't really matter.
Remember when the iPad came out and thought it was a rushed joke with an awful name?
It will make them look worse, in a way, if we see them making a lot of concessions to popular outrage. The core look and feel of the UI was something they really should have taken the time to get right the first time, before going public. It's hard to save face in this business.
Windows Phone chose "Flat design" and ran with it, the "Live Tile" was invented - More interactive, informative minimal icons. Also it brought over some beautiful uniformity, a design language that actually worked. iOS 7 does nothing of that sort, and IMO is a redesign for the sake of a redesign.
Infact, it goes ahead and destroys everything that was great about its previous iterations - Accessible, Simple, Functional, etc.
To say the least, Apple Design[1] has failed colossally, they could and should learn a lot from Microsoft and Google designers.
[1] - Not the same as Apple Designers, since I'm damn well sure that no Interface designer worth his salt would ever allow iOS 7 to happen. I'm sure past design leads on iOS and even Forstall are having a chuckle over this mess.
Thats just my subjective opinion, but it comes across strongly from everything I’ve read and heard..... I don’t really care one way or the other, but I hope for their sake they can improve what they’ve shown and pull off something insanely great (though I’m not holding my breath).
Apple seems to be losing its edge. I'd be looking keenly at how the next version of Android shapes up, and if HTC continues its awesome hardware design, there's no reason not to get their next phone.
• Inconsistency
• Unnecessary complexity
I don't have much of a problem with the colours. The icons are only half the problem though. Both the text and icons do not stand out enough against the background, and the text and icons seem too close together. The homescreen just looks half finished.
Shocking, right? Things looks half finished in a pre-release beta. What were they thinking?
You have a wildly varying base palette, a wild variety of light sources (that's what a gradient indicates, remember!), and a wild variety in complexity (contrast "phone" with "settings").
The net result is an icon package that feels haphazardly thrown-together by multiple teams of wildly variant skill levels who didn't communicate at all.
Even if all the icons looked like Passbook or Safari, it'd be better than the current setup, because it would at least be consistent.
I freaked out in the beginning because I thought the crummy icons were representative of Apple screwing up the entire new design direction for iOS. But now that I’ve seen the rest of iOS, I’m not that worried.
After a couple days with the beta, it's pretty obvious that Apple didn't, like, FIRE their UI designers or anything. There are a few strange choices, but most of the new OS feels like an improvement when you use it.
Real world characteristics were used for a long time as a crutch. It helped the non tech savvy connect to technology, because they were utilizing things they recognized from the real world.
Fast forward and now people don't need this crutch. Flat design and minimalism are proof of that. Don't be scared of change.
They did, however, create a set of design principles for user interfaces for computer applications (inspired in large part by particular pre-computing graphic design styles, but also including particular principles for providing affordances and feedback for interactive applications within that graphic style.)
I didn't mean to suggest that it was, I was trying to suggest a better focus for discussions of whether iOS design was following Microsoft in any substantial way than either "flat rectangles", or even "what bits seem generally similar to Win 8".
iOS 7 Jelly Bean
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672819/who-designed-ios-7-s-ico...
And then there's this-
Just like you don’t want to use pure black, you also never want to use “straight from the tube” colors. They come off as tacky and cheap.
(followed by some thing about bros and neon)
All colors are "straight from the tube" in this medium. There is no additional complexity or uniqueness with any variation of reds, greens and blues. Applying what can only be considered colour hipsterism diminishes the message enormously.
Maybe the colors simply aren't right among their peers, or for the purpose, but the notion that they're simply too easy or "bro-ish" is silly.
Hamburgers are better than hot dogs. Dogs are better than cats.
Okay, bad examples, because those are objective truths. How about-
Yellow is better than blue.
It was clear enough, after the whole hipster "not like bros" nonsense, with the "Actually if we’re being completely honest, its colors look like they were pulled straight out of Windows Metro. (And that’s not a good thing!)" bit.
Microsoft has a lot of designers. I'll bet a bunch of them will objectively make statements of claimed factual truth if given the chance. Metro has a lot of designer boosters (indeed, many in the iOS camp are boosters of the overall mix of design found in Metro). But instead of apparently realizing that they have a particular impression, the blog author is under the confused delusion that they have observations of fundamental truth. Maybe it's a narrative exercise to make an argument more convincing, but alas, such yields the sort of reply that I made.
But I'm not sure why prevalence in the real world is relevant at all. We're not talking about some Samsung claim of being inspired by nature, and skeudomorphs are not the goal. I don't think natural prevalence is relevant at all.
So white is "better" than gray. Less saturated is "better" than more saturated. At least in the author's opinion. Narrative beyond that (such as the notion that some colors are too easy) is just trying to build some structural justification for those notions.
#000 #F00 #0F0 #FF0 #00F #F0F #0FF #FFF