4 ms·

The 'flat' design is a complete abomination compared to what came before. I could not believe my eyes when my dad showed me W10. I despair about humanity. Idio

The 'flat' design is a complete abomination compared to what came before. I could not believe my eyes when my dad showed me W10. I despair about humanity. Idiots following fashion instead of utility.

pil4rin 11y ago
http://bit.ly/1L6VTe8 http://bit.ly/1L6VTe8
- kgermino 11y ago
  Please don't use shortened links - HN will shorten overly long links on it's own and bit.ly links hide the ultimate destination.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    OT, but there is a delightful irony to the linked image and your comment. http://memecrunch.com/meme/1JCJ5/lighten-up-francis/image.png?w=400&c=1 http://memecrunch.com/meme/1JCJ5/lighten-up-francis/image.pn...
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Meanwhile, back in the 'I'm not superior to everybody else' mere mortal's world… Discarding flat design as 'abomination' by 'idiots' is rather missing some of the wider design context. Take a look back as Swiss design from the 50s, for example. Lots of use of minimalism, bold colour, simple typography (Helvetica, even!). It's remarkably similar in some senses; one of the reasons it became popular was because of the perception that design had become fussy and overburdened by ornamental detail. I think we saw the same process of design evolution with modern flat designs. There was certainly a perception among some designers that it was difficult to build modern interfaces in part due to the cruft which had been accumulated over the years. Look at an iOS 6 device, for example; even though it's been only a few year, it looks utterly baroque to my eyes now. Needless lines, textures, gradients and shadows that obviously served a functional purpose at one point, but with that purpose gradually diluted as the functionality and interaction patterns of software evolved. Building to modern requirements – with things like touch-oriented interfaces and responsive applications – can become much more complex with these constraints. The thing is, design approaches will evolve over time. Designers, developers and UX folk will continue to tweak and adjust designs to offer a better experience. It's not always going to be right, or even visually appealing, but it's also a field that experiences constant change. Look at Google's Material, for example – it's not simply flat, but involves the use of animation, subtle gradients and shadows.
- AlexandrB 11y ago
  > I think we saw the same process of design evolution with modern flat designs. There was certainly a perception among some designers that it was difficult to build modern interfaces in part due to the cruft which had been accumulated over the years. Look at an iOS 6 device, for example; even though it's been only a few year, it looks utterly baroque to my eyes now. It's funny, the more time goes by the more I miss iOS 6 and company. Comparing flat UI design to Swiss design from the 50s is missing the obvious difference that minimal Swiss design was about presenting information, not creating an interactive interface. As the linked article points out, discarding affordances has a very real cost to someone learning the interface - it becomes harder to separate interactive elements from non interactive ones and harder to tell "on" from "off" (I STILL can't tell if iOS's shift is on by looking at it [1]). The desire to present information in a modern/minimalist way is at odds with this. My personal opinion is that what you call "wider design context" is pure fashion. Yes, flat is fashionable, but it's just not as good at the job of communicating the nature of UI elements to the user. [1] Edit: Just to add, Apple's difficulty with making the state of the shift key obvious is a microcosm of this overall problem. The expressive power of flat design language is so limited that indicating the state of a single element is problematic despite several attempts. iOS 9 finally solves this by changing the case of every letter on the keyboard to make it obvious.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Well said. Many of us saw this instantly when this fad hit; you have expressed it very well.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    Comparing flat UI design to Swiss design from the 50s is missing the obvious difference that minimal Swiss design was about presenting information, not creating an interactive interface. Yes – they're different. Obviously so – there's 60 years between here and there. The point is to compare the minimalist approach, and point out that there is precedent for it. There is no absolute, guaranteed, 100% 'ideal' user interface, and it's something that we are still working on – iterating on design is how we do that. it becomes harder to separate interactive elements from non interactive ones and harder to tell "on" from "off" (I STILL can't tell if iOS's shift is on by looking at it). The desire to present information in a modern/minimalist way is at odds with this. The iOS shift key is a good example of where this had failed (and I do hope it is fixed). But here's an alternative take – presenting information in a minimal fashion can help to draw attention to interactivity, rather than distract from it, thanks to the elimination of visual noise. The point is, it's far from clear what the best approach is. My personal opinion is that what you call "wider design context" is pure fashion. Yes, flat is fashionable, but it's just not as good at the job of communicating the nature of UI elements to the user. I don't think that's a case, or that such design can be called a 'fad'. Design is still an evolving field – devices and the way we use them is changing, and design is no different. I won't deny that there's an element of fashion, in the sense that the popularity of design styles can influence other designers. But isn't that equally explainable as a desire to avoid completely 'off the wall' interfaces that will be unfamiliar to users? FWIW, I don't find flat interfaces to be an issue. Metro, for example, was simple and elegant, while allowing for useful approaches to clearly displaying and exploring information. And the iOS approach, though it has inconsistencies, actually makes a lot of sense, with the 'content is king' and 'depth through translucency' approaches. Most of the problems with the latter appear to be to do with the expression of state.

The 'flat' design is a complete abomination compared to what came before. I could not believe my eyes when my dad showed me W10. I despair about humanity. Idiots following fashion instead of utility.

pil4rin 11y ago

http://bit.ly/1L6VTe8 http://bit.ly/1L6VTe8

kgermino 11y ago
Please don't use shortened links - HN will shorten overly long links on it's own and bit.ly links hide the ultimate destination.
- sbuk 11y ago
  OT, but there is a delightful irony to the linked image and your comment. http://memecrunch.com/meme/1JCJ5/lighten-up-francis/image.png?w=400&c=1 http://memecrunch.com/meme/1JCJ5/lighten-up-francis/image.pn...

matthewmacleod 11y ago

Meanwhile, back in the 'I'm not superior to everybody else' mere mortal's world… Discarding flat design as 'abomination' by 'idiots' is rather missing some of the wider design context. Take a look back as Swiss design from the 50s, for example. Lots of use of minimalism, bold colour, simple typography (Helvetica, even!). It's remarkably similar in some senses; one of the reasons it became popular was because of the perception that design had become fussy and overburdened by ornamental detail. I think we saw the same process of design evolution with modern flat designs. There was certainly a perception among some designers that it was difficult to build modern interfaces in part due to the cruft which had been accumulated over the years. Look at an iOS 6 device, for example; even though it's been only a few year, it looks utterly baroque to my eyes now. Needless lines, textures, gradients and shadows that obviously served a functional purpose at one point, but with that purpose gradually diluted as the functionality and interaction patterns of software evolved. Building to modern requirements – with things like touch-oriented interfaces and responsive applications – can become much more complex with these constraints. The thing is, design approaches will evolve over time. Designers, developers and UX folk will continue to tweak and adjust designs to offer a better experience. It's not always going to be right, or even visually appealing, but it's also a field that experiences constant change. Look at Google's Material, for example – it's not simply flat, but involves the use of animation, subtle gradients and shadows.

AlexandrB 11y ago
> I think we saw the same process of design evolution with modern flat designs. There was certainly a perception among some designers that it was difficult to build modern interfaces in part due to the cruft which had been accumulated over the years. Look at an iOS 6 device, for example; even though it's been only a few year, it looks utterly baroque to my eyes now. It's funny, the more time goes by the more I miss iOS 6 and company. Comparing flat UI design to Swiss design from the 50s is missing the obvious difference that minimal Swiss design was about presenting information, not creating an interactive interface. As the linked article points out, discarding affordances has a very real cost to someone learning the interface - it becomes harder to separate interactive elements from non interactive ones and harder to tell "on" from "off" (I STILL can't tell if iOS's shift is on by looking at it [1]). The desire to present information in a modern/minimalist way is at odds with this. My personal opinion is that what you call "wider design context" is pure fashion. Yes, flat is fashionable, but it's just not as good at the job of communicating the nature of UI elements to the user. [1] Edit: Just to add, Apple's difficulty with making the state of the shift key obvious is a microcosm of this overall problem. The expressive power of flat design language is so limited that indicating the state of a single element is problematic despite several attempts. iOS 9 finally solves this by changing the case of every letter on the keyboard to make it obvious.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Well said. Many of us saw this instantly when this fad hit; you have expressed it very well.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Comparing flat UI design to Swiss design from the 50s is missing the obvious difference that minimal Swiss design was about presenting information, not creating an interactive interface. Yes – they're different. Obviously so – there's 60 years between here and there. The point is to compare the minimalist approach, and point out that there is precedent for it. There is no absolute, guaranteed, 100% 'ideal' user interface, and it's something that we are still working on – iterating on design is how we do that. it becomes harder to separate interactive elements from non interactive ones and harder to tell "on" from "off" (I STILL can't tell if iOS's shift is on by looking at it). The desire to present information in a modern/minimalist way is at odds with this. The iOS shift key is a good example of where this had failed (and I do hope it is fixed). But here's an alternative take – presenting information in a minimal fashion can help to draw attention to interactivity, rather than distract from it, thanks to the elimination of visual noise. The point is, it's far from clear what the best approach is. My personal opinion is that what you call "wider design context" is pure fashion. Yes, flat is fashionable, but it's just not as good at the job of communicating the nature of UI elements to the user. I don't think that's a case, or that such design can be called a 'fad'. Design is still an evolving field – devices and the way we use them is changing, and design is no different. I won't deny that there's an element of fashion, in the sense that the popularity of design styles can influence other designers. But isn't that equally explainable as a desire to avoid completely 'off the wall' interfaces that will be unfamiliar to users? FWIW, I don't find flat interfaces to be an issue. Metro, for example, was simple and elegant, while allowing for useful approaches to clearly displaying and exploring information. And the iOS approach, though it has inconsistencies, actually makes a lot of sense, with the 'content is king' and 'depth through translucency' approaches. Most of the problems with the latter appear to be to do with the expression of state.