Application icons: Abstract or Realistic?

Evolution is something totally normal. As years pass everything evolves, icons included. The icons we find in today's applications aren't at all as the ones we found on the early OS. Their evolution is obvious, but was it necessary? Does today's more realistic icons work better than previous simpler versions?

One of the main characteristics icons should have is the possibility to transmit a message through a simple symbol. The evolution of software has forced designers to improve the designs by sometimes adding much more detail than necessary. One of the main questions people ask themselves is if those extra details help to the identification of an icon. Most of their answers are negative but I don't see it that way.

Let's take the example of the Folder Icon and how it has evolved through the years.

The first icon which identified a folder is very pixelated, and on my opinion not so clear. We might find it very clear now because a lot of years has passed and we got used to it but not because it actually reminds us of a folder. It's evolution came with a change on color, perspective and shadows, achieving a totally different icon that, even if it differs from the original icon folder idea it's clear and it transmits the point.

Simplifying tasks is the main objective of icons, but we can't deny that beauty is important to, or if you have to choose between two applications equally functional, but one with a better designed graphic user interface, which one would you chose? We're more attracted to well done and detailed icons where realism makes the process of associating an icon to an action or concept easier.

Is functionality being sacrificed by making icons more realistic? I don't think so. Applications are now runned in more powerful hardware than they were 5 or 10 years ago, so a little extra detail or size on icons won't harm, as long as designers don't over-do them.

One of the biggest critiques made to realism in icons is the fact that people don't understand the message. For example, the Hard Drive icon has evolved notably, as we can see in the picture below (first Mac's icons, then Windows).

"Most people don't know what a Hard Drive looks like" is the biggest critique to these icons. They think that because they don't know how it looks like the old icons transmit the message much better, but if they don't know what a hard drive looks like, what does the first icon transmits? The Windows one looks like a grey envelop, and they don't catch the attention the way they should, at least not now. Perspective and detail give icons more dynamism, make the user interface friendlier, hence, allow user to identify them faster. Size is an important factor too, since today we use bigger displays, icons can be bigger and for this reason a little extra detail is not an issue.
Perspective, shadows and detail are important, but its also important that they mean something and are not there just because. Communicate in a beautiful way is not easy, but I think the icons we're using right now in most of our applications work very well. They are visually attractive and they are representative. We must not confuse realistic with over done. Realistic can be simple, clear and clean; Vista Style icons are a proof of it.

We can say that even though abstract icons work just fine, realistic icons add that extra touch that catches out attention faster, guide us clearer through an interface and enhances our applications, even if the functionality is the same as the one in abstract icons.