I am pretty sure icons are easier and faster to recognize, except when you make them (too) small. In particular, they probably are easier in the long run, as long as they don't change position. But in a context where things change or you need a lot of buttons, words probably win.

▲

kevincox 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is why you need both. Icons are faster to recognize, but words tell you what the icons need. So you need the words at first to discover the icons, then the icons serve as valuable tools for scanning and quickly locating the click target that you are looking for.

	▲	lelanthran 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This is why you need both. Icons are faster to recognize, but words tell you what the icons need. So you need the words at first to discover the icons, then the icons serve as valuable tools for scanning and quickly locating the click target that you are looking for. Only if there are few icons. If every item in that menu in the screenshot of Windows had an icon, and all icons were monochrome only, you'd never quickly find the one you want. The reason icons in menu items work is because they are distinctive and sparse.
	▲	tgv 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's what I tend to do too, but sometimes space requirements win. But of course, a good design is adapted to its user: frequent/infrequent is an important dimension, as is the time willing to learn the UI. E.g., many (semi) pro audio and video tools have a huge number of options, and they're all hidden under colorful little thingies and short-cuts. Space is important there, because you want as many tracks and Vu meters and whatever on your screen as possible. Their users are interested in getting the most out of them, so they learn it, and it pays off.