Icons must have a clear meaning
If icon design focuses only on creating an attractive set of symbols, the icons may still need labels to make sense, or people may interpret each one differently.

In interfaces and film, when motion is still added simply because things can move, it tends to interrupt reading without conveying anything new. A sounder approach: every motion must state what it helps people do, and a motion rationale locks that choice in.

The first thing motion must stop is being added simply because things can move. In interfaces and film, a habit that won't stop leads directly to motion that interrupts reading and conveys nothing new.
What continues can be minimal. Only by keeping it minimal can you hold to the rule that every motion must state what it helps people do.
Every motion must state what it helps people do. Fall short of that, and motion is still being added simply because things can move.
Ambiguity usually leaks in through well-meant additions. To accommodate more situations, people slip back into adding motion simply because things can move.
If each addition isn't checked against the original problem, the boundaries grow harder to enforce. The problem: motion interrupts reading and conveys nothing new.
A negative list beats adjectives. Only by writing down when motion must not be used will the team see that “every motion must state what it helps people do” is more than a slogan.
Keep the list short, short enough to be read in full during review.
The motion rationale exists to stop overreach, not to collect inspiration. Out-of-bounds ideas can exist, but they can't pass as approved motion.
The boundary holds when the design lead owns it and has the authority to say no.
After a breach, don't just fix a single deliverable. Go back to the motion rationale and add the condition that was bypassed this time.
Then recheck with the same question: is motion without a stated reason removed?
From what's non-negotiable to tools usable on the ground, each layer answers just one question, so motion doesn't slide back into being added simply because things can move.
This layer defines what in motion is non-negotiable.
This layer turns motion into checkable conditions.
This layer sets what motion may vary across contexts.
This layer hands motion to the people who use it and spells out the exceptions.
Note: This diagram is a conceptual framework. It explains a way of thinking and is not statistical data. Source: Qingmei Future Insights.
In interfaces and film, mark the moments where motion is actually called on, rather than starting by reworking the habit of adding motion just because things can move.
Replace longer explanations with a motion rationale, keeping only what supports “every motion must state what it helps people do.”
At review, ask only: is motion without a stated reason removed? If there's no answer, it isn't yet a decision.
The design lead. Motion without an owner gets quietly altered when conflicts arise.
If icon design focuses only on creating an attractive set of symbols, the icons may still need labels to make sense, or people may interpret each one differently.
In system operation, if system review still waits for someone to complain before changing it, small deviations often accumulate into another way of working.
In brand visual review, if the identification system still means finishing the system and putting it in the handbook, the result is often a complete handbook with daily materials still made separately.