It’s hard to justify Tahoe icons — screenshot of tonsky.me
tonsky.me ·

It’s hard to justify Tahoe icons

This article explains why adding icons to every menu item, like in macOS Tahoe, hinders usability. I found it a nice little breakdown on when and how *not* to use icons in menus, detailing failures in consistency and differentiation.

Visit tonsky.me →

Questions & Answers

What is the 'Tahoe icons' article about?
The 'Tahoe icons' article critiques the implementation of icons in macOS Tahoe menus, arguing they decrease usability and violate established UI design principles. It compares modern icon usage to historical Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
Who would find this article useful?
This article is useful for UI/UX designers, software developers, and anyone interested in human-computer interaction and interface design principles. It provides specific examples of effective and ineffective icon usage in menus.
What are the key criticisms of Tahoe icons compared to good design practices?
The article criticizes Tahoe icons for lacking differentiation (icons on every item), inconsistency across and within apps, reusing icons for different actions, and having excessive, illegible detail. Good design practices emphasize icons that aid quick recognition and reinforce unique actions.
When does the article suggest icons should be used in menus?
The article implies icons should be used sparingly and strategically to differentiate specific, frequently used, or critical menu items. Adding icons to *every* item is counterproductive as it makes nothing stand out, hindering quick identification.
What technical detail does the article mention regarding icon size in macOS Tahoe?
The article notes that Tahoe menu icons are tiny, typically fitting within a 12x12 pixel square (24x24 pixels on Retina displays), which leaves very little space for distinguishable details. This is smaller than the 16x16 icons used in Windows 95.

More from Design