3 ms·
Flat design is more simple than skeuomorphism, almost by definition. What you seem to want is complexity.
by kick 7y ago
Flat design is more simple than skeuomorphism, almost by definition.
What you seem to want is complexity.
- msla 7y agoComplexity is good if it allows you to see affordances more easily. Maybe buttons should look different from non-clickable icons. That requires some complexity.
- kick 7y agoI don't disagree that complexity can be good! I was just correcting the "longing for that simplicity" statement, which was incorrect.
- arexxbifs 7y agoThere's plenty of middle ground between the current extreme flatness and, say, MacOS X Tiger. An interface with a simple 3D bevel look (such as in Motif or the toolkit in NeXTStep) is no more skeuomorphic than than a flat interface, especially not considering how prevalent touchscreen controls are today. Flatness to the current point of minimalism is, to me, very taxing and complex. Things blend together so much it's hard to tell where one UI element begins and another one ends. I frequently misclick in Windows 10/Office 365 even though I've used it for years now, simply because the flatness makes me misinterpret the layout and function of the UI.
- etaioinshrdlu 7y agoI miss the look of MacOS X Tiger so much. It was a thing of beauty.
- threatofrain 7y agoEasy isn’t always so simple.
- kick 7y agoCorrect, but flat design is objectively simpler than skeuomorphism. I don't even mind skeuomorphism, I quite like it, but it's just bullheaded-error that has people claiming that it's simpler than flat design. Complexity isn't a sin or something.
- Shorel 7y agoFlat design is way too simple. I liked the 3Dness of the buttons in Windows 95-98. You knew if something was clickable right away.