3 ms·
That seems pretty hyperbolic, especially considering that Nielsen says flat designs are on the right track. To quote, "Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque
by panopticon 7y ago
That seems pretty hyperbolic, especially considering that Nielsen says flat designs are on the right track. To quote, "Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces. Scaling back from those excesses is good for usability. But removing visual distinctions to produce fully flat designs with no signifiers can be an equally bad extreme. Flat 2.0 provides an opportunity for compromise — visual simplicity without sacrificing signifiers."
And that Tumblr blog appears equally hyperbolic. There are some clear UI/UX mistakes in there, but the blog is conveniently ignoring how visually noisy those pre-Yosmite GUI elements are in-context by providing oddly cropped screenshots to make a point.
- marcusjt 7y agoi.e. Nielsen advocates something much more like Material Design
- UIZealot 7y agoThe biggest ding they could come up with against skeuomorphism is "heavy, clunky"? Skeuomorphic UIs maybe "heavy" and "clunky", but they were also beautiful, whimsical, and fun! They brought me joy each time I use them. Flat design, in contrast, is soulless and depressing. God I miss the Steve Jobs era! Apple could've been the beacon of light amongst darkness, like it used to be. But his death, and the subsequent betrayal of his trust by Jony Ive, condemned the entire world to soulless and depressing UIs. And there's no end in sight.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SebastianKra 7y agoIf you think Flat design can't be fun, then I encourage you to look at the entire iPad gesture system [1]. I feel like Iron Man when using it. Also, the Apple Books app [2] isn't purely flat, but it shows that flat Design can have just as much character. [1] Multitasking, Drag and Drop, Text Selection, Control Center, Cut Copy Paste Undo. [2] https://www.apple.com/apple-books/ https://www.apple.com/apple-books/
- UIZealot 7y agoI'll concede that skeuomorphism, at its worst, can be heavy and clunky; while flat design, at its best, can also be fun.
- petilon 7y agoEVERYTHING beautiful is skeuomorphic. The page turn in iBooks, page curl in maps, cover flow, the shred animation in older versions of Passbook, the date picker in iOS 6, rotating settings gear (when updating iOS 6), the Time Machine interface in older versions of OS X, photo borders and shadows in older versions of iWorks documents, etc. This is not surprising, because our sense of beauty comes from the physical world. So what is the problem with skeuomorphism? Tech enthusiasts would like their phones to look like something from the future, not something from the past. But ordinary everyday people prefer for it to look like things they are already familiar with, or can relate to. Tech enthusiasts worry that the skeuomorphism was getting totally out of hand, particularly where the UI metaphor started limiting functionality (e.g. an address database that's limited to what a Rolodex can do, rather than exploiting what is possible with a computer). But this is not really true. For example, iBooks has instant search, something only possible with a computer. Some people point out that many skeuomorphic elements reference things that a large part of Apple's audience hasn't used in a long time, if ever. True, but here's the thing: It doesn't matter whether the user has ever seen a reel-to-reel tape. What matters is whether the visuals depict a physical object that the user can model in his mind. If it is too abstract (that's the opposite of physical) then non-tech-enthusiast users will find it hard to intuit. Some people say skeuomorphism looks tacky. This is partly true. Skeuomorphism is hard to do. When done poorly it does look tacky. But when done well it looks very beautiful. By removing all skeuomorphism Apple threw the baby out with the bathwater.