On my google page right now, I see "gmail images [squares] [bell] [plus]" I don't have a clue what the squares mean or what the plus means, and the only reason I know what the bell means is because it lights up sometimes. To me the squares should mean "tile the stuff you're looking at", but there is nothing to tile, and no reason to press it. The plus should mean "add a new thing here", but what would I add? I don't know.

I suppose I could investigate, but I don't need google to do anything worth investigating.

My phone has a "tiles" button, too, but it apparently means "menu." (There are multiple such buttons, each looks different.) It also has a search button I've never pressed.

I feel that iconography is far too overused, and it is especially unsuitable for the kinds of abstractions we use for software. It's one thing to put a toilet or a phone on a sign, and a completely different thing to put a circle with a wedge, or a pair of rectangles on a sign.

Your conclusion that iconagraphy is overused was most likely arrived at without the use AB testing thereby proving my point.

AB testing uses the conclusions of participants who don't use AB testing to come to conclusions, therefore AB testing doesn't even use AB testing.

You are confusing my personal feelings for a rigorous test suite. Your point didn't concern how I feel.

Exactly!

With regards to the flat trend it's deeper than just everything suddenly being flat. What Google and Apple is trying to develop is a visual/interaction language where the content itself becomes both the content and the interface at the same time.

It's not just about how it looks its as much about how it moves, the choreography so to speak. It's as much driven by trial and error as it is by data and thats exactly how it should be.