It’s extra noise to me. It’s not that I think menu items should
never have icons. I think they can be incredibly useful (more on
that below). It’s more that I don’t like the idea of “give each
menu item an icon” being the default approach.This posture lends itself to a practice where designers have an
attitude of “I need an icon to fill up this space” instead of an
attitude of “Does the addition of a icon here, and the cognitive
load of parsing and understanding it, help or hurt how someone
would use this menu system?”The former doesn’t require thinking. It’s just templating — they
all have icons, so we need to put something there. The latter
requires care and thoughtfulness for each use case and its
context.To defend my point, one of the examples I always pointed to was
macOS. For the longest time, Apple’s OS-level menus seemed to
avoid this default approach of sticking icons in every menu item.That is, until macOS Tahoe shipped.
Nielsen’s post on MacOS 26 Tahoe’s tragic “icons for every menu item” design edict was published a month ago, before Nikita Prokopov’s post on the same subject yesterday. Both posts are crackerjack good, and complement each other. Nielsen makes the point that the Mac stood as a counter to platforms and systems that put icons next to every menu item. Of course Google Docs has icons next to every menu item. It sucks. Google sucks at UI design. We Mac users laugh at their crappy designs.
Well, who’s laughing now? It might sound hyperbolic but this change is the reason why I’ve decided not to upgrade to MacOS 26 Tahoe. I could put up with the rest of Liquid Glass’s half-baked who-thought-this-was-OK-to-ship? nonsense, but not the whole menu bar. I can tolerate being angry about UI changes Apple makes to the Mac. But I can’t tolerate being heartbroken.
