Numen omen

A Wikipedia article states that "a computer icon is a small pictogram (...) which represents a file, folder, application or device on a computer operating system." Apple adds that icons "help communicate what you can do with an application before you open it." The already mentioned Wikipedia entry also says that "the icon must be original, distinctive, and tiny and it must be useful on a wide variety of monitors set at different resolutions." Quite a complex and difficult, yet important task, isn't it?

It is generally agreed that a well-designed and distinctive icon can make a good impression on the users. Of course, it would be silly to choose a particular browser based solely on its icon design, but if you came across a page recommending a few (unknown) browsers, I am quite sure you would click on a well designed icon as it gives an impression of being a more professional product.


Now look at the picture. There are icons of twenty web browsers (more or less popular) in it (Internet Explorer appears twice, as one icon belongs to the Windows version 7 and the other to an already discontinued Mac version). How many can you recognize? (hint: icons appear in alphabetical order). Which would you click if you were asked to launch a web browser (provided you were not using any of them, of course). What made you choose that particular icon? Would you be able to recognize all those web browsers’ icons if they were placed among hundred other icons of different programmes?

Apple suggests that an icon should give you an idea of what the purpose of the application is. This requirement is often hard to meet and in my opinion not really necessary as icons serve as visual mnemonics and can be anything you like as long as they help you remember what they represent. This does not mean obviously that application developers should make them hard to decipher for the users.

You have probably noticed that those twenty icons share certain characteristics. The most striking is perhaps the use of globe (or sphere) as the representation of the fact that it is a World Wide Web after all. Also, many applications display the first letter of their name in their logo (this includes the Opera logo, of course). Still others (e.g. Firefox) prefer to use a picture to convey their name. As for colours, blue is the most dominant whilst red is used only in Opera logo really (not taking into account small touches of in it in other icon designs like the pointer of the compass in Safari). There are also elements of navigation present in some of the designs too which may suggest the programme is used for browsing or navigating the web. Interestingly, there is only one icon suggesting surfing (a fish on the wave from Shiira), a pretty obvious collocation with the web, in my opinion.

So how does Opera icon stuck up? In my opinion, and you may well be of a different one, it is not really as appealing shiny and professional as others. Sure it is not the worst (I think that place goes for Amaya -- the first icon on the list), but it is inferior to many others including those of Open Source products which historically (but that is changing now) have always had the worst visual representation.

Another, maybe even more interesting question is if it needs a redesign. And if yes, should the developers (or rather designers) just add a few touches to make the icon more flashy and professional or should they design a completely different one from grounds up and perhaps make it more telling of the application purpose. You should bare in my mind that companies mostly opt for the first option, especially if the product's icon also happens to be their brand image (as is the case with Opera). Obviously, Opera could still keep the big red 'O' as their company logo and create a completely new icon for its internet suite, namely Opera browser.

My opinion? In a nutshell, I believe Opera deserves a totally new icon and the company a more professional design (though it would be probably well if the latter was based on the current one). What about yours?