3 ms·

I think, much of the recent developments in UI design (and its conceptual space) is owed to display technology. Modern displays have different contrast ratios f

I think, much of the recent developments in UI design (and its conceptual space) is owed to display technology. Modern displays have different contrast ratios from CRTs. Generally, fine details used to look softer on CRTs. So, when flat displays were introduced, bevels didn't look right, Apple got rid of realistic icons (formerly introduced in OS X), etc. On the other hand, extensive regions of flat color where always a bit of a problem on CRTs (too bright, maybe there were some artefacts from some interference – who remembers the stripes caused by a cell phone placed next to a CRT?), but rendered impressively on flat screens. Meaning, the old UIs didn't work like they used to be on the new technology, while the new displays provided for a few things which had always been a bit problematic on the old ones. Enter double resolution displays and the necessity to render the same content on varying resolutions. Flat design and parametric scaling seems to be the answer. However, there's now a limited range of ways to add unobtrusive visual clues and of compartmentalisation/grouping as compared to the old visual vocabulary. Moreover, with the old vocabulary, a single element could have multiple visual clues attached to it (e.g., a bevel indicated a button, the icon and its color a task and a category, an underline in the associated text a shortcut key, etc), while now a single element can have just a single clue added to it for the most. Reduced visual complexity, as necessitated by the display technology, also meant reduced conceptual complexity.

steve1977 7y ago
Not sure about that. I personally found Windows 95 (or XP/Windows 7 in classic mode) looked great on flat screens - better than on CRTs actually.
- masswerk 7y ago
  This is actually true for Win 95 / classic Win UI. (However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen.) P.S.: Many (including them myself) consider Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6.x) as the epitome of a UI, which matched usability, conceptual space and visual design next to perfection considering the visual and stylistic preferences of the time. That said, I can also see, even if I do not appreciate the road taken specifically, why this wasn't sustainable with high resolution displays.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen. They looked "heavy" on pixelated, low-res flat screens (lacking the natural Gaussian blur that a CRT gives you) but it's not like there was an alternative back then. OTOH nowadays, with resolutions, DPIs etc. varying so much, pixel perfect design is not the sensible choice that it was back then. Flat design is just a bad choice, though. You can have softened bevels/3d effects in a modern design such as Adwaita in GNOME/Linux, and that looks quite good - perhaps the best feasible iteration on a Windows 95-like design, all things considered.
    - masswerk 7y ago
      Mind that in the mid 1990s color CRTs still tended to be quite blurry, if it wasn't a Trinitron display. (E.g., dithered colors were next to indiscernible from solid colors, especially on larger RGB displays.) Also, pixels used to be much bigger (starting at 72 dpi, eventually tending towards 96 dpi with intermediary steps on multisync displays). With this kind of resolution on a flat screen, the UIs do not look how they used to look on a CRT. > Flat design is just a bad choice, though. You can have softened bevels/3d effects in a modern design (…) I agree. However, I can see why we ended where we are now. Also, it's cheap (as compared to having to maintain various resources and various color definitions for various resolutions) …
  - steve1977 7y ago
    Indeed (re Snow Leopard). Still the "classic" Aqua look, but without too much of the brushed metal and stripes of early Aqua versions.
  - masswerk 7y ago
    Not sure why a comment which agrees with an objection made to a previous argument is downvoted. (Not sufficiently stubborn?)

steve1977 7y ago

Not sure about that. I personally found Windows 95 (or XP/Windows 7 in classic mode) looked great on flat screens - better than on CRTs actually.

masswerk 7y ago
This is actually true for Win 95 / classic Win UI. (However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen.) P.S.: Many (including them myself) consider Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6.x) as the epitome of a UI, which matched usability, conceptual space and visual design next to perfection considering the visual and stylistic preferences of the time. That said, I can also see, even if I do not appreciate the road taken specifically, why this wasn't sustainable with high resolution displays.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen. They looked "heavy" on pixelated, low-res flat screens (lacking the natural Gaussian blur that a CRT gives you) but it's not like there was an alternative back then. OTOH nowadays, with resolutions, DPIs etc. varying so much, pixel perfect design is not the sensible choice that it was back then. Flat design is just a bad choice, though. You can have softened bevels/3d effects in a modern design such as Adwaita in GNOME/Linux, and that looks quite good - perhaps the best feasible iteration on a Windows 95-like design, all things considered.
  - masswerk 7y ago
    Mind that in the mid 1990s color CRTs still tended to be quite blurry, if it wasn't a Trinitron display. (E.g., dithered colors were next to indiscernible from solid colors, especially on larger RGB displays.) Also, pixels used to be much bigger (starting at 72 dpi, eventually tending towards 96 dpi with intermediary steps on multisync displays). With this kind of resolution on a flat screen, the UIs do not look how they used to look on a CRT. > Flat design is just a bad choice, though. You can have softened bevels/3d effects in a modern design (…) I agree. However, I can see why we ended where we are now. Also, it's cheap (as compared to having to maintain various resources and various color definitions for various resolutions) …
- steve1977 7y ago
  Indeed (re Snow Leopard). Still the "classic" Aqua look, but without too much of the brushed metal and stripes of early Aqua versions.
- masswerk 7y ago
  Not sure why a comment which agrees with an objection made to a previous argument is downvoted. (Not sufficiently stubborn?)