A quick, engaging way to test whether your icon names match how people naturally search for them, while accounting for how prescriptive your design system needs to be.
By asking a mixed group what they would call specific icons, you uncover mismatches, jargon, and opportunities for clearer naming. This tactic helps you balance usability with consistency, particularly as systems evolve in rigidity and maturity. Use this when rolling out a new icon set, revisiting naming conventions, or checking existing icons where searchability or clarity feels off.
Steps
-
Select icons
Pick 4–6 icons you want feedback on. Prioritise icons that are reused across features or where naming decisions have caused friction. Keep the set tight so people can focus.
-
Sense-check system constraints
Before sharing, consider how prescriptive your system needs to be at this stage. Use Rigidity vs Flexibility Mapping to understand whether consistency or adaptability should lead, and a Maturity Assessment to gauge how much variation teams can realistically support.
-
Number and share
Number the icons and share them in a systems channel. Keep it open to designers, engineers, product partners, and anyone who relies on the system. In more rigid systems, frame the exercise around alignment. In more flexible systems, allow space for interpretation.
-
Ask the question
"What would you call each of these icons?"
Avoid hints or prompts. Pay attention to whether people default to feature-based names to aid usability, or broader conceptual names that support reuse.
-
Collect responses
Encourage a mix of serious suggestions, shorthand, emojis, and jokes if they appear. Informal responses often surface how people actually think about the icon, rather than how they think they should.
-
Review and refine
Cluster the most common answers and compare them to your current naming. Decide where consistency should win and where usability should take priority, for example when naming an icon after a recognisable feature improves findability. Use your system's rigidity and maturity as the lens for making trade-offs, rather than aiming for a single correct answer.