> The OP (a) showed some icons that I doubt are in Unicode and (b) mentioned some hundreds or thousands of icons.

I saw. But the point you made was far more generalised so I gave examples of where icons can have that feature.

> The English word can be defined in a dictionary

Which is still no use if you cannot read English

> and, then, readily translated to nearly any language on the planet.

Automated translations are usually terrible. They’re just about passable for larger volumes of text because you can figure out what the article is generally about. But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation

> Nothing similar is available for icons.

You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.

Sure shit icons do exist but then so do shit labels for actions that don’t describe the action well. But you cannot form an argument where you’re comparing the worst of icons against the best of written labels. That’s simply not a fair basis for an argument.

You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely. And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties. In fact you seem only focused on web site design while making a sweeping statement that all icons are bad.

Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design. Or on why road signs are the way they are. Or even just an article on why the media glyphs were invented. You’re quoting your own opinion but here but there’s been decades of research into this very topic.

I was responding to the OP (original post) with its several examples of icons and mention of hundreds or thousands more. It looked like the context was clear -- Web pages.

Then my context was also Web pages and not all uses of icons. I certainly was not talking about highway road signs.

> But for short words without context, good luck getting a meaningful translation.

For English words, the meanings are in dictionaries and easily elsewhere online, e.g., Google.

E.g., when I was reading some old math in some old German, I just used Cassell's dictionary between English and German. So, I would take some one word in German, go to the dictionary, and get the definition in English. So, my input to the dictionary was just one word, not a lot of context. Worked fine. So, I was able to read the book on differential geometry by Václav Hlavatý (I was taking a reading course from him -- he had helped Al) translated from his Czech to some pompous old German -- I found the old German difficult reading and so did a fellow math grad student from Germany. Still Cassell's worked fine.

But if need context, then take the English definition, some dozens of words, paste that into Google Translate, and get back some dozens of words in Czech, German, French, Swedish, Russian, Spanish, Ukrainian, maybe even Japanese, Korean, ....

Besides, for the context of the Web page links, they are nearly always just 1-3 words and really simple, so simple that the translation should be effective. E.g., there are billions of people on the Internet often reading English words for links, and those billions have to include kids in Southeast Asia, etc. with cheap Android smart phones -- they seem to be able to work with English words for links. Right, they also work with icons, but there they get to have their mouse hover over an icon and get the corresponding 1-3 English words.

Net, I contend that for English speakers, or readers, or not, for links on Web pages, 1-3 simple English words are more effective than icons.

For me, with icons I have to hover, and I don't like that; with no icons and the few English words instead, I don't have the delay of hovering.

> You keep saying that and you keep overlooking that a good icon will illustrate the action in a meaningful way.

On "meaningful" I essentially don't agree: For more, to me the idea, claim, suggestion, assumption that icons, e.g., as in the OP, have obvious meaning is outrageous -- I'm torqued. E.g., back to the OP, several icons were shown, and, flatly, bluntly, frankly, I have no, none, nichts, nil, nada, zip, zilch, zero understanding, knowledge, or even a guess what any of the them was supposed to mean -- to me, "meaningful" was just not there, quite the opposite, to me they were flatly meaningless. Then the OP mentioned many dozens more icons, from lots of long, hard work developing icons. Many dozens -- gads, and some people will be pushing those meaningless little cartoons onto me and pressing me to understand them, dozens of them. So, I'm torqued. Like flies at a picnic where I need a spray can of bug juice.

If you see those little cartoons as having meaning, go ahead -- I won't agree. E.g., what the !@#$%^&()_ does a stack of three horizontal bars mean????? What about a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the right over a tiny circle with a horizontal line to the left??? "Meaning"? Not there for me, and I can't look it up in a dictionary, pronounce it, spell it, type it into text (e.g., here), ....

E.g., the Web site of my bank has me log in, and for that they have essentially an HTML "single line text box" control* for my password. Well, bless the hearts of their hard working JavaScript/CSS programmers, inside that text box on the right end they have some icon, some squiggle, some tiny cartoon, some I don't know what the heck. I put up with that meaningless nonsense for some months and on another issue gave some feedback to the bank and mentioned the obscure, meaningless squiggle. Eventually I looked closely and guessed: Sooooo, there was a cartoon of an eye and then there was a diagonal line through the eye. It was really small for a cartoon, about the size of a single character. Soooo, the guess is that the icon was to say that anything entered into this single line text box would not be visible. This is BANKING, about money, and about PASSWORDS, and for such serious work I'm supposed to like such obscure, cartoon squiggle nonsense? I'm torqued but guessed the whole intention of the squiggle was nearly meaningless and harmless and put up with it. But, we already know that, that single line text boxes for passwords have a line of asterisks that from long usage have come to mean that a password entered into that text box will not be visible.

> You’ve also overlooked my point about conveying information clearly but tersely.

I do not agree: To me, there is nothing, nichts, nil, nada "clearly" about icons. A few icons, say, fewer than a dozen for all of the Web, might be tolerable, but the OP was going for many dozens -- no way can they have immediate, obvious, intrinsicly clear meanings. E.g., for at least months, maybe years, I looked at that house icon that Firefox displays without knowing what it was for. Looking again, it looks mostly like a dog house. Why a dog house? Finally, on some other issue, from some changes in some Firefox update (start of an unanesthetized root canal procedure) that broke some of my macros I spent most of an afternoon working on Web browser system management mud wrestling and by accident found some actual English text that explained the dog house. Went for at least months, maybe years, before discovering what this dog house meant -- nothing "clear" about it.

Okay, here is the situation from the invasion of icons in computing: Icons are little cartoons with immediate, intrinsic meaning that is obscure down to nothing. But icons are now quite popular in software that has a graphical user interface (GUI). In relatively well done software, can hover over an icon and in a few seconds get back a good explanation in a few, usually, English words. So each computer program, Web browser, Web site, etc. can have its own icons. That there are millions of Web sites, each able to use its own icons for its own purposes, just ignore that fact. So, get to learn the icons on the Web pages for one bank, another bank, an Internet service provider, Windows, each Windows application with a GUI, Adobe's Acrobat, each DVD video player, the software for each printer, the programs WinZip, some cases of disk file backup software, and did I mention some millions of Web sites? And from the OP, have many dozens of icons can use. So, just have this ocean of icons to learn -- likely already know a natural language that displays fine with the Roman alphabet, but, still, have to learn the icons or at least frequently hover. My reaction is: Icons are a big step backwards from the progress of the Roman alphabet, and we should stay with the Roman alphabet.

> And about people with other kinds of reading difficulties.

And for those people just why will a cartoon be easier to read than a single English word? Just tell such a person that that word is an icon and they will do fine, okay?

> Honestly the best thing you can do here is go read a book on design.

No need: I'm just responding to the OP and their efforts to create many dozens of icons for use on Web pages. I'm not responding to road signs. Besides, in my area, on the Interstate highways, when there is some message to be communicated, they use big signs with text in English and no icons.

Net, I believe that for links on Web pages we should resist more icons and, instead, stay with the Roman alphabet and, usually, English words.

We don't agree.