The other side of recognizing that this is a language issue is recognizing that we're raising the bar for computer literacy. My mother isn't likely to figure out what the three lines mean in any context, because she simply isn't all that computer literate.
Now, in the mid-late 90s she would have had no trouble recognizing the save icon—the floppy disk was what she was probably saving to anyway, and there it is on the icon. People 20 and under are unlikely to have had real experiences with floppy disks, so to them, the floppy icon is just what the save icon happens to look like, for no ideographic reason at all. That's just what save icons look like, and they recognize it, because it's part of basic computer literacy.
I think it's healthy of people on HN to recognize this as a language issue, because that's what it is, but there should be some corresponding philosophy: do we want to keep moving towards digital hieroglyphics or do we want to strive to retain representativeness in icon imagery? More meanings and context sensitivity for differentiation, as is the case with the three lines, is certainly the abstract direction.
Now, in the mid-late 90s she would have had no trouble recognizing the save icon—the floppy disk was what she was probably saving to anyway, and there it is on the icon. People 20 and under are unlikely to have had real experiences with floppy disks, so to them, the floppy icon is just what the save icon happens to look like, for no ideographic reason at all. That's just what save icons look like, and they recognize it, because it's part of basic computer literacy.
I think it's healthy of people on HN to recognize this as a language issue, because that's what it is, but there should be some corresponding philosophy: do we want to keep moving towards digital hieroglyphics or do we want to strive to retain representativeness in icon imagery? More meanings and context sensitivity for differentiation, as is the case with the three lines, is certainly the abstract direction.