Brand iconography: a system of pictograms and its role
The role of pictograms in brand identity: how the system differs from a set of icons
An individual icon solves a local task — to denote the action 'share' or the section 'settings'. A pictogram system solves a task of another order: it encodes brand meanings in graphic form and makes them recognizable regardless of context. This is a semiotic layer — a set of signs that the user reads faster than text and remembers better than photographs.
The difference manifests in production logic. Icons are drawn as needed, and in two years a company accumulates a menagerie of incompatible styles. A system is designed once — with a grid, line thickness, and the character of rounding — and then it scales to hundreds of pictograms without losing identity. This is also more economically advantageous: pictograms are cheaper to produce than photographs and illustrations, a large batch is drawn once and reused across all media.
How to connect iconography with a logo and font
The main mistake is to design icons in a vacuum, without linking them to the rest of the identity. A professional approach is built on modular mathematics, where icon parameters are derived from typography parameters, not invented separately.
- Line thickness equals letter thickness. Selectel's system has a rule: the contour of a pictogram must be optically equal to the contour of the brand font's letter. Then text and icon next to each other look like elements of one alphabet, not like foreign insertions.
- Thickness tied to x-height. Rostelecom uses a different formula: the thickness of the icon line is 1/8 of the x-height of the font — the height of the lowercase letter. This provides an organic connection between the iconography and typography without manually adjusting each pictogram.
- The distinctive character of the rounded corners. Selectel's external corners are rounded four times more than the internal ones — a technique that makes the icons recognizable even without a logo nearby, like a brand's personal handwriting.
Such rules transform iconography from a decorative element into a continuation of the font pair and the logo — a unified graphical DNA.
Types of pictograms and when to use which one
In branding, icons are typically divided by function, but real practice shows that it's more important to divide them by the method of naming and usage — otherwise, the team starts mixing up semantic and formal icons in place.
| Type | When to use | Example of logic |
|---|---|---|
| Functional | Interface management: buttons, navigation, statuses | «Share», «Settings», «Close» |
| Informative | Marking categories, sections, product characteristics | Tariff icons, service feature icons |
| Imagery | Large illustrative icons for landing pages, presentations | An icon-illustration in the 'Benefits' section |
| Single-purpose (by meaning) | A unique function that cannot be confused with another | «Atlassian Intelligence» is named by meaning, not by form |
| Multi-purpose (by form) | Universal signs applicable in different contexts | «arrow right», «globe» — named by appearance |
Atlassian's two-level categorization approach solves a specific problem: the design team does not confuse a unique product icon with a universal arrow that can be inserted anywhere. Without such separation, the system quickly grows into duplicates with different meanings under the same form.
Criteria for a quality icon system
A visually appealing icon does not yet mean the system works. There are specific, testable criteria, not just subjective «likes/dislikes».
- Semantic simplicity. Rabobank's rule: an icon should not be complex, inside — no more than two objects, without double meaning. Three elements within one sign is already a mess that the user does not instantly read.
- Optical density. In Selectel, the standard grid size is 48×48px, and the icon is designed to occupy the entire area, approaching a square form. This provides a uniform visual weight of the set: no individual signs appear heavier than others.
- Readability at scaling. The system must preserve meaning at 16px and at 32px without loss of detail down to the level of a spot.
- Consistency with typography. Line thickness and rounding are derived from font parameters, not selected by eye.
- Unambiguous naming. Each icon has one fixed name and is not confused with similar-looking signs.
Implementing the system across all touchpoints
Designing the system is half the job. Real issues begin at the implementation stage, when iconography enters the web, applications, printed materials, and navigation simultaneously, and conflicts start to emerge there.
Scaling problem
When changing the icon size, not only the dimensions change but also the structure. BBC encountered this on their 180 icons in three sizes, where for small sizes they had to completely redesign the pictograms: details readable at 32px become a dirty spot at 16px. If the system does not initially provide a separate version for small scale, then when implemented on mobile screens and in navigation, the brand loses recognizability.
Metaphor conflicts
The same form can be interpreted differently in various cultural and product contexts: 'envelope' can mean a letter or a postal add-on, and 'gear' can refer to settings or a technical section. When scaling the system to new products, the team must test metaphors for unambiguity — otherwise, the icon begins to conflict with itself across different sections of the product.
Versioning
The icon system lives for years and is updated alongside the product. Without a single repository with versions and naming rules (similar to Atlassian's single/multi-purpose approach), duplicate and outdated variants appear after a couple of releases, which designers continue to use out of habit. Practical takeaway: implementing the system requires not only a guideline but also a source of truth library (design system, Figma library) that all teams — from print to mobile development — refer to.
The difference manifests in production logic. Icons are drawn as needed, and in two years a company accumulates a menagerie of incompatible styles. A system is designed once — with a grid, line thickness, and the character of rounding — and then it scales to hundreds of pictograms without losing identity. This is also more economically advantageous: pictograms are cheaper to produce than photographs and illustrations, a large batch is drawn once and reused across all media.
How to connect iconography with a logo and font
The main mistake is to design icons in a vacuum, without linking them to the rest of the identity. A professional approach is built on modular mathematics, where icon parameters are derived from typography parameters, not invented separately.
- Line thickness equals letter thickness. Selectel's system has a rule: the contour of a pictogram must be optically equal to the contour of the brand font's letter. Then text and icon next to each other look like elements of one alphabet, not like foreign insertions.
- Thickness tied to x-height. Rostelecom uses a different formula: the thickness of the icon line is 1/8 of the x-height of the font — the height of the lowercase letter. This provides an organic connection between the iconography and typography without manually adjusting each pictogram.
- The distinctive character of the rounded corners. Selectel's external corners are rounded four times more than the internal ones — a technique that makes the icons recognizable even without a logo nearby, like a brand's personal handwriting.
Such rules transform iconography from a decorative element into a continuation of the font pair and the logo — a unified graphical DNA.
Types of pictograms and when to use which one
In branding, icons are typically divided by function, but real practice shows that it's more important to divide them by the method of naming and usage — otherwise, the team starts mixing up semantic and formal icons in place.
| Type | When to use | Example of logic |
|---|---|---|
| Functional | Interface management: buttons, navigation, statuses | «Share», «Settings», «Close» |
| Informative | Marking categories, sections, product characteristics | Tariff icons, service feature icons |
| Imagery | Large illustrative icons for landing pages, presentations | An icon-illustration in the 'Benefits' section |
| Single-purpose (by meaning) | A unique function that cannot be confused with another | «Atlassian Intelligence» is named by meaning, not by form |
| Multi-purpose (by form) | Universal signs applicable in different contexts | «arrow right», «globe» — named by appearance |
Atlassian's two-level categorization approach solves a specific problem: the design team does not confuse a unique product icon with a universal arrow that can be inserted anywhere. Without such separation, the system quickly grows into duplicates with different meanings under the same form.
Criteria for a quality icon system
A visually appealing icon does not yet mean the system works. There are specific, testable criteria, not just subjective «likes/dislikes».
- Semantic simplicity. Rabobank's rule: an icon should not be complex, inside — no more than two objects, without double meaning. Three elements within one sign is already a mess that the user does not instantly read.
- Optical density. In Selectel, the standard grid size is 48×48px, and the icon is designed to occupy the entire area, approaching a square form. This provides a uniform visual weight of the set: no individual signs appear heavier than others.
- Readability at scaling. The system must preserve meaning at 16px and at 32px without loss of detail down to the level of a spot.
- Consistency with typography. Line thickness and rounding are derived from font parameters, not selected by eye.
- Unambiguous naming. Each icon has one fixed name and is not confused with similar-looking signs.
Implementing the system across all touchpoints
Designing the system is half the job. Real issues begin at the implementation stage, when iconography enters the web, applications, printed materials, and navigation simultaneously, and conflicts start to emerge there.
Scaling problem
When changing the icon size, not only the dimensions change but also the structure. BBC encountered this on their 180 icons in three sizes, where for small sizes they had to completely redesign the pictograms: details readable at 32px become a dirty spot at 16px. If the system does not initially provide a separate version for small scale, then when implemented on mobile screens and in navigation, the brand loses recognizability.
Metaphor conflicts
The same form can be interpreted differently in various cultural and product contexts: 'envelope' can mean a letter or a postal add-on, and 'gear' can refer to settings or a technical section. When scaling the system to new products, the team must test metaphors for unambiguity — otherwise, the icon begins to conflict with itself across different sections of the product.
Versioning
The icon system lives for years and is updated alongside the product. Without a single repository with versions and naming rules (similar to Atlassian's single/multi-purpose approach), duplicate and outdated variants appear after a couple of releases, which designers continue to use out of habit. Practical takeaway: implementing the system requires not only a guideline but also a source of truth library (design system, Figma library) that all teams — from print to mobile development — refer to.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
