This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about design, business, experience, simplicity, the web, culture, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago. Visit the Product Blog for more information on our products.

I think it’s cool that 37s was able to get everyone into a chat session at the same time since the people involved are located all over the world (in different time zones).

Those new Adobe icons, while bland, are EXACTLY right. Teaching the Adobe apps you wouldn’t believe how many times you have to say, “No, the feather, not the butterfly!” Then sit and wait for the app to launch, quit it, and then have them hit the flower accidently. Plus, you shrink your dock down enough and it’s more like, “No, the brown lump, not the green lump.” These icons will be easy to remember, and work well at tiny sizes too.

The adobe CS3 logos are perfect. Each is very distinct from the next….in a large suite of applications what else are you actually looking for? They even tie in nicely into the CS3 interfaces.

Thumbs up.

Not a lot of explanation as to why some of those posted sets were the designer’s favorite, but I find those sets to be among my favorites per artist, as well. I am always impressed by the photo-realism captured in some sets.

With regard to the CS3 icons, my only issue is that they don’t say anything about what the program does/is. Sure, once you remember the letter combo of the app in question, you’re fine, but without context, I’m completely lost. Also, the boxes are so organic and gorgeous and are completely disconnected from the icons that represent their contents. How do those two design elements work together successfully? I’m looking at two distinctly different items there.

Jon was right to say there is a separation of icon and logo. The function for both are different, though their presentation is similar. It is very confusing and perhaps some more insight into those differences would be helpful.

This is great and I look forward to Parts 2 & 3.

Terry—Ps says a WHOLE lot more about photoshop than a feather did. Yeah, when the icon was a camera lens there was a correlation between icon and function, but as soon as CS came about, all of that was blown out the window. Unless there’s a secret connection between page layout and butterflies that I’m not familiar with.

I hope parts 2 & 3 set aside the branding aspects of icons. I think the functional value of in-product icons (toolbars, etc.) is much more interesting.

I really enjoyed this post and I am looking forward to the next two parts. Rarely would I ever read a post this long all the way to the end, but I couldn’t help it. Great bits of dialog, imagery, and trolls all rolled into one.

Man, this reads like Design Observer on quaaludes. Nice insight, everyone! “Icons [and logos] are way overrated, but if I see a nice one, I’m much more likely to try out an application.” Um, isn’t that sort of a main function of branding: to make a positive first impression? What, do you want the icon/logo to ring up your customers’ shopping cart and bag their groceries, too?

Did anyone stop to question whether any of the new Adobe “icons” qualify as such? Letters on a background do not an icon make; in fact, I’d say it’s precisely the opposite of an icon: it’s decorated abbreviation. And to everyone who thinks, “Finally, they’ve gone back to making sense! I know what it is because it SAYS what it is right there on the picture-box thingy!” I suggest you abandon using the dock, and put your applications window in list mode so you can find your apps alphabetically.

And let’s stop to applaud everyone showing up to a group interview – who are you guys, the Wu-Tang Clan of icon design? Enter the 36×36-pixel Chambers!

As a definition the Adobe icons aren’t really icons. They are put in as icons, but really they are shorthand labels in colored boxes. If the letters weren’t there, they’d have absolutely no meaning. I think most icons have gone this route because coming up with something that is truly iconic is difficult. Compare the Adobe icons to the iTunes logo. You may not know exactly what it does, but you get the sense it is music related and discs are involved in some way. Now, that may not make sense for what the store has become, but it was a good start. Adium is a cute duck, has nothing to do with the app, but it is disctinctive at least. What Adobe has is not icons, but indistinctive labels. Now, as for the dock, that is broken in many ways and honestly, designing for a Mac OS X screw up isn’t really the way to go.

Um. I guess I just ended up saying the same thing as Todd! :-p

The link to Hicks Design has a space in it.

About PS icons (dixit wikipedia) : “An icon (from Greek εἰκών, eikon, “image”) is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics; in computers an icon is a symbol on the monitor used to signify a command, file or record;[…]” I don’t see where is the “image”, and where 2 letters makes an icon…

I’m a sucker for retro stuff and therefore… I love! Brian’s pixelized icons. I hope in parts 2 and 3 there’ll be something about the process of creating the icons. i always wondered how icon designers get such an amazing amount of details working at such small scales… like those LOTR icons.

Laughing my ass off @ 36×36-pixel chambers…..

I miss the old days of Zeldman, K10K , Joshua Davis, and even Kioken (“they ride skateboards inside! they play videogames! they are sooooo awesome!”).

Remember Dreamless? Remember how cool it was while it lasted?

@Dan (kind of):

They WORK but that doesn’t make them RIGHT . I don’t know why they didn’t just leave it alone from the pre-CS days. Or better…

- PHOTOshop: make it a damn camera - ILLUSTRATOR : make it a damn paintbrush - InDesign (crappy name): make it a damn page (it is a page layout app, after all) - Flash: Duh, make it a damn “flash” - Fireworks: Duh, a damn firework - Acrobat: Leave it alone (it semi-sucks, but it’s acceptably recognizable now)

CEOs and marketing execs can sometimes have their heads so far up their collective asses they sometimes just can’t see the obvious.

Great post. I’m not an icon designer so I enjoy the insight and envy the great work.

As for the new adobe icons – they’re better than the non-descript feather and butterfly. Call me old school but I would have liked to have seen some tie back to their function – maybe like: http://www.spitballin.com/adobe.jpg did I mention I’m not an icon designer. Disregard the poor 30 second typography and that they would fail at smaller sizes!

My favorite icon vote has to go to the Firefox icon. By far the most impressive.

Keep these great chats coming.

Everyone expects great icons from Adobe because it’s Adobe. Letters in a coloured box isn’t exactly awardwinner design, but it gets the job done and helps me remember which app is which.

Focusing on the tool aspect of the Application is an interesting idea. Photoshop does so much, What’s the defining feature?

Ha! I guess you guys don’t like the competition. (I posted a URL to another product which has nice icons). Sorry.

I don’t think logos are overrated, but good products are definitely underrated. The Adobe icons would be better without the boxes… the forms are too similar.

This chat sounds like circle jerking. “Wow we can make 128px photorealistic icons that look like a dog turd in small size but the CS3 icons that are easily distinguished are crap…. blablabla”

“One of the most difficult things to find is someone who is actually willing to make a decision” – I’d say it’s vastly more difficult to find one who is willing to make a decision that doesn’t suck.

My my, the bosses I’ve had…

Graphic design isn’t just to make things pretty, it’s meant to solve a communication problem – expressing ideas in the most effective manner. Whether you think it’s attractive or not, Adobe’s periodic table of software icons works. The design is simple almost to the point of being generic but accomplishes it’s goals. All of the applications tie together as a family and are easily recognizable. The icons/symbols work large or small. Even in other languages the files use the same extensions – AI, PSD or whatever. Everyone that uses Adobe software knows what it does, there’s no need for the icon to illustrate the function. There are thousands of photo apps that have an icon of a camera, polaroid, lens or some variation. Just as many vector drawing programs that have an icon of a pencil, pen nib or some other obvious thing. Painter X already uses a paintbrush, it’s better than the ugly nine-fingered hand from the previous version but it didn’t help the program function better.

Well said, Doctor.

I’ll go one step farther: if you’re a designer and you fall into the “CS3 icons suck” camp, you need to rethink your job.

The bizarre proclamation that type doesn’t qualify as an image- or an icon -will come as a shock to the folks at McDonald’s, Circle K and ABC . Also, Zorro. And anarchists. And Nathaniel Hawthorne.

The Adobe icons completely, elegantly solve a huge fucking problem. I use these products every day. The old icons got in the way. The new icons work.

Agree with The Doctor. I wouldn’t want every icon in my dock to look like the CS3s, but as a selective few, they jump out like beacons to my twitchy cursor. Extremely usable, and I find the minimalism beautiful. (Great choice of type, and the background gradient is bold yet soothing.)

I downloaded the Photoshop CS3 beta just to get the icon and paste it on Photoshop CS. I’m not kidding.

Also, Zorro. And anarchists. And Nathaniel Hawthorne.

LOL . Awesome.

The new Adobe icons are quite elegant and surely followers of Bauhaus would approve! I do.

They’ve already got the cs3 icons as periodic table sets. See http://www.koregraphik.com/downloads/adobe-cs3/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/52898846/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/46557601/ and http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/50549215/

I also love designing icons. I’ve done a few that might look familiar to you.

Hi guys,

Appreciate the CS3 icons in your discussion. (Though wouldn’t have been fun to have the Adobe designer join in the fireside chat? Maybe not quite enough rotten fruit laying around… winks).

So, our desktop icons have spawned quite the debate. A thousand posts from a thousand perspectives on countless blogs have covered everything from the failure of typography to communicate, spectral analyses of illustrative icons, academic arguments, pragmatic arguments, aesthetic arguments… The really interesting thing is that people have spent an enormous amount of time thinking about and discussing icons. Perhaps experience matters. :)

We had those discussions internally too. Ultimately, the result of our asking questions of the desktop, workflow, and the role of product identity there netted a different perspective than is normally considered. Should be said that one of the many factors weighing on this perspective is the scale of the work we needed to address. I don’t think a company offering a few tidy apps would necessarily arrive at the the same conclusion. I certainly hope the creators of apps like CSSEdit, Firefox, Transmit and such stay the course with clever and beautiful metaphorical icons.

Anyhow, the true context for any desktop icon system is in action on the desktop. Success lies in how those assets support the tools in the work you need to do. Now that I’ve finally been able to work with the new product versions, I’m in love with the experience. I hope you guys will be too.

Cheers, Ryan

Ps, I’m obliged to point out that the Koregraphik icons Matt linked above are not the actual Adobe CS3 icons. I’ll get something together with the real icons and post back if mom and dad are cool with it.

I consider myself lucky that I worked on the older Adobe product icons. Even then we got lot’s of (sadly) negative feedback.

There was a huge surprise when we took away the eye for Photoshop and the Vinous for Illustrator. At the same time people understood the new metaphor and agreed that if fit the product better than the eye or the Vinous. I have to say, I was shocked with this new CS3 icons, but it’s starting to grow on me.

-Tony www.giltstudios.com

Well, I hope I didn’t give offense, because that wasn’t my intent. Some of the people involved in the chat are long-time acquaintances, and I was talking very informally and comfortably.

Not spending much actual time on the web lately, I’ve been largely removed from what I gather has been a huge discussion about the new Adobe icon suite. I’m also not using the lastest version and still seeing the old icons during my workday.

Consequently, my answer to Matt’s question merely reflects my initial gut-level response to something I haven’t yet used and have really only looked at a few times, very much still a first impression – but I could have said it with more tact.

Not having thought particularly deeply about them – and the problems the designers had to solve – my personal reaction was more emotional than intellectual. Having it used as the pull-quote just… well… makes me wish I hadn’t commented on that question at all – even if it was an honest opinion.

Again, my apologies if I gave offense.

I think the CS3 icons are basically Macromedia icons with somebody saying “I don’t like the MX runes anymore, make it letters. Oh and while you’re at it, add that flash-y RIA gradient”.