4 ms·
No, the reason we got rid of it was that it was impractical for like 90% of software. Skeuomorphism works for calendars and notepads, that's it. That's why thos
by jbob2000 9y ago
No, the reason we got rid of it was that it was impractical for like 90% of software. Skeuomorphism works for calendars and notepads, that's it. That's why those are always the examples you see for them.
There's no such thing as skeuomorphism for a chat app or a social media site - there's no analog comparison to take design cues from, they're inherently a digital thing. So what you end up doing is wrapping digital things in leather and wood texture as if it was some kind of physical device. It's tacky and cheap, and frankly, I think only a small subset of users get a kick out of it.
I don't like these designs at all. Sure, they are well put together. But the screen feels crowded and the buttons look hard to hit. It just looks incredibly delicate, if i flipped on large text mode, the whole design would break.
On the other hand... Skeuomorphism is fantastic for video games, where utility is not the primary motivator of design. If I'm playing a WW2 game of some kind, yeah, I'm cool with menus looking like war-torn clipboards and whatnot.
- stephencoyner 9y agoCompletely agreed, well said.
- AstralStorm 9y agoFor games, both approaches work well. Very weird is fun. Immersion (of which skeuomorphism is a part) can be fun too. I'd rather not want my phone apps try to be immersive rather than get the job done.