Author is a Lungfish fan, which I appreciate, but using a lot of examples of bad icon design does not quite prove his point. He mentions himself that icons have the power to hold way more language than can fit verbally in the same space. Once a user learns an icon — even a bad one — it can save mental overhead on repeat uses.

Good icon design is not easy, and all these bad examples by big software makers definitely drive that point home, but what that says to me is "don't overestimate your skill at making understandable icons."

So if you can at least pull that from the article, that's a good message. But I wouldn't want everyone to suddenly feel inadequate and give up on iconography altogether.

Usability is important, to be sure, but graphic appeal also has its place.

Well known companies are training their users to recognize icons, which become part of their UX and in turn their brand. These standards often see wide adoption and become widely recognized.

This provides interface designers another tool to make cleaner, more attractive pages.

A confusing icon can certainly do more harm than good, and text rollover hints or just plain text labels can often be a better choice.