5 ms·

Apple, Big Sur, and the Rise of Neumorphism

57 points by flowerlad 6y ago

hpoe 6y ago
This article hints had why I am always suspicious of "UX" and "UI" engineers. As it notes there is a strong resistance to formalism of any sort, and working with and considering the user doesn't seem to be the first element of design rather a focus on "style" and "differentiation" seem to plague the field. Ultimately software is to be used to accomplish a task and if you aren't aiding in that are you really adding value. Of course as I type this comment I am forced to confront my own hideous reflection as a software engineers as all of the criticisms I level at "UI" and "UX" engineering apply just as well to my own field. The difference is instead of being Bohemians about how the drop shadow effects the overall sense of user well being, we are hipsters in whatever the newest framework or language is because it introduces some old concept repackaged as a new feature and is the hot shit. Many argue that programming is more of an art than a science that a good developer can just right good code and it can really be measured, and how often is software projects, personal or professional derailed by wanting to have a "pure and elegant" architecture, or one that is hyper scale, meanwhile the business just wants crap done, and there is plenty of times that developers build something without ever talking to a user. I don't know maybe there is some reflection to be taken out of this. On the other hand I think designers have been screwing with things to much we reached the pinnacle of UI and UX in the Unix tool chain, CLI, terminal, text based human computer interaction and everything after that is designed for wussies that aren't worthy to work a keyboard.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- woah 6y ago
  Do you know the difference between and engineer and a designer?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Can you explain why you're asking this question? It almost seems like a rherotical retort to the GP who is criticizing UI/UX designers while also introspecting their own misgivings and hypocritical aspects in software engineering. I thought it was well put.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
They took button drop shadows away to punish the contemptible user. Now they will bring them back, but with so many shadows and edges that our poor, beset-upon user, who just finally figured out where they can and can't click on a field of identical boxes called "flat ui", will experience vertigo as they try to mentally process what can and can't be done with this quasi-3d world that is presented to them. The design community always manages to surprise.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  Well, to be fair, I don’t think we ever really figured out the flat world. There is just no rhyme or reason to it; there are no affordances, so you can only learn via trial and error. Pretty much the worst system possible.
yodon 6y ago
Skinny jeans are in -> Skinny jeans are out -> repeat. Listening to designers try to justify why neumorphic is better than skeumorphic is better than oldmorphic is better than someothermorphic is like listening to teenagers try to justify why whatever jean leg style is currently "in" is fundamentally and absolutely better than whatever jean leg style their parents wore. It's just fashion, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly no more a revolution in UX than a 10% increase or decrease in the amount of fabric in the legs of a pair of jeans.
KCUOJJQJ 6y ago
IMHO companies should include older designs, or allow people to adjust everything. So Windows 10, for instance, could come with the designs of 10, 8 and 7.
- Razengan 6y ago
  It already does.
  - sidpatil 6y ago
    As far as I can tell, Windows 10 doesn't natively allow you to use the older window decoration styles—you'd have to purchase 3rd party software to do so.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      That was a snarky dig at how Windows still has different styles and paradigms from different eras in different places. Menu bars, tool bars, control panels, and so on.
flohofwoe 6y ago
I really loathe how UI designers have become so entirely separated from the world they live in, with the result that they are forcing random change on users just for the sake of fashion, not actual innovation in how a UI works. All they talk about all day in day out is a "design language" or what "emotions" a font evokes. THIS DOES NOT MATTER! It would be fine if there would be an opt-out (let me install my own skins like I can do on pretty much every Linux desktop, and even on older Windows versions). Let me decide how ugly or pretty I want my computing environment to be. UI/UX designers (I'm using the term interchangeably, because hell if I know what actually separates a UX designer from a UI designer) should focus on functional improvements, not on superficial fluff like colors and fonts, or whether a button is flat or looks 3D. Stuff like this should entirely be under the control of the user. Oh, and the Hamburger Menu is not a functional improvement.
- ajconway 6y ago
  Random changes is how you push the world forward. Otherwise you get stuck in a local maxima. Today we're getting new buttons, some other day we'll see the rise of some new technology and will think "yeah, that's the obvious thing to do", quickly forgetting all the other ones that didn't succeed, but were created through the exact same process of random exploration.
  - flohofwoe 6y ago
    But for UIs obviously this idea didn't work, and why should it, running in circles (e.g. changing colors, fonts, or button outlines) doesn't get you anywhere. With the switch to a new UI paradigm (multi-touch) we lost discoverability, predictability through standard behaviour, shortcuts etc... why were UI designers not able to come up with innovations that improve the state of the art? Instead, touch UIs peaked with the first iPhone and since then became worse because more features were added without (I assume) serious usability research. Instead of attempting to solve the actual problems that need solving, UI designers have retreated into their cozy corner of changing some completely unimportant surface details every couple of months, that's just an illusion of innovation. Smoke and mirrors.
kolyaio 6y ago
For me it's more like uglymorphism, I really think these icons looks ugly. I don't believe I'm saying it but I think that apple need to learn from MS with their fluent design. I understand that they trying to add shadows and dimension to flat design. I think they really distracting and look kinda like 90s.
Nextgrid 6y ago
That "neumorphic" music player they show as an example is absolutely horrendous.
fnordsensei 6y ago
This truly will be the year of WinAMP on desktop.
gumby 6y ago
This article defends change for the sake of change (even the style is named “neu” — new). But let’s take it seriously for a moment: Shadows and lighting are actually cues we take into account when finding physical switches, handles, etc. yet adding them to the screen uses a lighting source “origin” that is unrelated to the real world. We literally look through a screen into an alien world. What if our phones and computers had adequate ambient light sensing that the shadows can be Aligned to the environment? That the shadows on the screen point the same way as the shadows of the keyboard keys, or of something sitting on the desk or against the wall behind your screen? That might actually make an interface easier and more intuitive.
- m463 6y ago
  > What if our phones and computers had adequate ambient light sensing that the shadows can be Aligned to the environment? That is an interesting concept. I suspect the only times it would work would be when you are sitting near a desk lamp or are outside in the sun (directional light from a points source). Otherwise you will likely have omnidirectional lighting. You could use the accelerometer, which would either work like those dynamic backgrounds. Personally I'm OK with "flat" stuff in predictable places like the macos menubar - all things in a constrained space are either drop-down menus, or are for information with clickable settings But in free-form where anything can appear, always on shadows for buttons might be boring but they are GOOD.
michelb 6y ago
The examples in the article are horrendous. I'm not a fan of the current flat, 'material' design, but I do have reservations about "MacOS Dribbble". I hope the contrast issues will be fixed, and icons will be more in line with each other. In the end the UI needs to comprehensible and get out of the way of what you are trying to do.
vidanay 6y ago
Maybe those 3D buttons can be rendered dynamically with the real sun as the light source so the shadows and highlights are constantly changing? That'd be cool. /s (in case it's not obvious)
- PinkMilkshake 6y ago
  When I saw some of the example icons my first thought was what my phone will look like if all the app/icon designers don't agree on which direction the light is coming from. In some examples the light is coming from above you, in others it seems to come from "north" of the screen, and another from north west.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    That's a problem that would affect normal drop shadow design as well.
woah 6y ago
I wonder if there’s a forum full of sewing machine engineers somewhere railing against how useless fashion is and how you can’t beat a good old fashioned set of woolen monk’s robes for warmth and functionality
rswail 6y ago
Aside from snarking at UX/UI designers and what is perceived as artistic pretension, there are some interesting thoughts and direction for this new style. Assuming that AR is something that is coming to our UIs, head up displays in vehicles, AR via cameras in our phones, potentially moving to eye level, this new design language, with the concept of icons and affordances using lighting, might be an interesting approach. When you're overlaying reality with digital additions, having them lit appropriately, taking into account the ambient lighting (not just the levels, but the directions) and using that to place the elements makes them much easier to understand.
keenmaster 6y ago
Apple is easing its customers into AR, where 3D design will truly be seen in 3D form and won't just be an illusion.

57 points by flowerlad 6y ago

hpoe 6y ago

This article hints had why I am always suspicious of "UX" and "UI" engineers. As it notes there is a strong resistance to formalism of any sort, and working with and considering the user doesn't seem to be the first element of design rather a focus on "style" and "differentiation" seem to plague the field. Ultimately software is to be used to accomplish a task and if you aren't aiding in that are you really adding value. Of course as I type this comment I am forced to confront my own hideous reflection as a software engineers as all of the criticisms I level at "UI" and "UX" engineering apply just as well to my own field. The difference is instead of being Bohemians about how the drop shadow effects the overall sense of user well being, we are hipsters in whatever the newest framework or language is because it introduces some old concept repackaged as a new feature and is the hot shit. Many argue that programming is more of an art than a science that a good developer can just right good code and it can really be measured, and how often is software projects, personal or professional derailed by wanting to have a "pure and elegant" architecture, or one that is hyper scale, meanwhile the business just wants crap done, and there is plenty of times that developers build something without ever talking to a user. I don't know maybe there is some reflection to be taken out of this. On the other hand I think designers have been screwing with things to much we reached the pinnacle of UI and UX in the Unix tool chain, CLI, terminal, text based human computer interaction and everything after that is designed for wussies that aren't worthy to work a keyboard.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
woah 6y ago
Do you know the difference between and engineer and a designer?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Can you explain why you're asking this question? It almost seems like a rherotical retort to the GP who is criticizing UI/UX designers while also introspecting their own misgivings and hypocritical aspects in software engineering. I thought it was well put.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

They took button drop shadows away to punish the contemptible user. Now they will bring them back, but with so many shadows and edges that our poor, beset-upon user, who just finally figured out where they can and can't click on a field of identical boxes called "flat ui", will experience vertigo as they try to mentally process what can and can't be done with this quasi-3d world that is presented to them. The design community always manages to surprise.

ironmagma 6y ago
Well, to be fair, I don’t think we ever really figured out the flat world. There is just no rhyme or reason to it; there are no affordances, so you can only learn via trial and error. Pretty much the worst system possible.

yodon 6y ago

Skinny jeans are in -> Skinny jeans are out -> repeat. Listening to designers try to justify why neumorphic is better than skeumorphic is better than oldmorphic is better than someothermorphic is like listening to teenagers try to justify why whatever jean leg style is currently "in" is fundamentally and absolutely better than whatever jean leg style their parents wore. It's just fashion, nothing more, nothing less, and certainly no more a revolution in UX than a 10% increase or decrease in the amount of fabric in the legs of a pair of jeans.

KCUOJJQJ 6y ago

IMHO companies should include older designs, or allow people to adjust everything. So Windows 10, for instance, could come with the designs of 10, 8 and 7.

Razengan 6y ago
It already does.
- sidpatil 6y ago
  As far as I can tell, Windows 10 doesn't natively allow you to use the older window decoration styles—you'd have to purchase 3rd party software to do so.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    That was a snarky dig at how Windows still has different styles and paradigms from different eras in different places. Menu bars, tool bars, control panels, and so on.

flohofwoe 6y ago

I really loathe how UI designers have become so entirely separated from the world they live in, with the result that they are forcing random change on users just for the sake of fashion, not actual innovation in how a UI works. All they talk about all day in day out is a "design language" or what "emotions" a font evokes. THIS DOES NOT MATTER! It would be fine if there would be an opt-out (let me install my own skins like I can do on pretty much every Linux desktop, and even on older Windows versions). Let me decide how ugly or pretty I want my computing environment to be. UI/UX designers (I'm using the term interchangeably, because hell if I know what actually separates a UX designer from a UI designer) should focus on functional improvements, not on superficial fluff like colors and fonts, or whether a button is flat or looks 3D. Stuff like this should entirely be under the control of the user. Oh, and the Hamburger Menu is not a functional improvement.

ajconway 6y ago
Random changes is how you push the world forward. Otherwise you get stuck in a local maxima. Today we're getting new buttons, some other day we'll see the rise of some new technology and will think "yeah, that's the obvious thing to do", quickly forgetting all the other ones that didn't succeed, but were created through the exact same process of random exploration.
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  But for UIs obviously this idea didn't work, and why should it, running in circles (e.g. changing colors, fonts, or button outlines) doesn't get you anywhere. With the switch to a new UI paradigm (multi-touch) we lost discoverability, predictability through standard behaviour, shortcuts etc... why were UI designers not able to come up with innovations that improve the state of the art? Instead, touch UIs peaked with the first iPhone and since then became worse because more features were added without (I assume) serious usability research. Instead of attempting to solve the actual problems that need solving, UI designers have retreated into their cozy corner of changing some completely unimportant surface details every couple of months, that's just an illusion of innovation. Smoke and mirrors.

kolyaio 6y ago

For me it's more like uglymorphism, I really think these icons looks ugly. I don't believe I'm saying it but I think that apple need to learn from MS with their fluent design. I understand that they trying to add shadows and dimension to flat design. I think they really distracting and look kinda like 90s.

Nextgrid 6y ago

That "neumorphic" music player they show as an example is absolutely horrendous.

fnordsensei 6y ago

This truly will be the year of WinAMP on desktop.

gumby 6y ago

This article defends change for the sake of change (even the style is named “neu” — new). But let’s take it seriously for a moment: Shadows and lighting are actually cues we take into account when finding physical switches, handles, etc. yet adding them to the screen uses a lighting source “origin” that is unrelated to the real world. We literally look through a screen into an alien world. What if our phones and computers had adequate ambient light sensing that the shadows can be Aligned to the environment? That the shadows on the screen point the same way as the shadows of the keyboard keys, or of something sitting on the desk or against the wall behind your screen? That might actually make an interface easier and more intuitive.

m463 6y ago
> What if our phones and computers had adequate ambient light sensing that the shadows can be Aligned to the environment? That is an interesting concept. I suspect the only times it would work would be when you are sitting near a desk lamp or are outside in the sun (directional light from a points source). Otherwise you will likely have omnidirectional lighting. You could use the accelerometer, which would either work like those dynamic backgrounds. Personally I'm OK with "flat" stuff in predictable places like the macos menubar - all things in a constrained space are either drop-down menus, or are for information with clickable settings But in free-form where anything can appear, always on shadows for buttons might be boring but they are GOOD.

michelb 6y ago

The examples in the article are horrendous. I'm not a fan of the current flat, 'material' design, but I do have reservations about "MacOS Dribbble". I hope the contrast issues will be fixed, and icons will be more in line with each other. In the end the UI needs to comprehensible and get out of the way of what you are trying to do.

vidanay 6y ago

Maybe those 3D buttons can be rendered dynamically with the real sun as the light source so the shadows and highlights are constantly changing? That'd be cool. /s (in case it's not obvious)

PinkMilkshake 6y ago
When I saw some of the example icons my first thought was what my phone will look like if all the app/icon designers don't agree on which direction the light is coming from. In some examples the light is coming from above you, in others it seems to come from "north" of the screen, and another from north west.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  That's a problem that would affect normal drop shadow design as well.

woah 6y ago

I wonder if there’s a forum full of sewing machine engineers somewhere railing against how useless fashion is and how you can’t beat a good old fashioned set of woolen monk’s robes for warmth and functionality

rswail 6y ago

Aside from snarking at UX/UI designers and what is perceived as artistic pretension, there are some interesting thoughts and direction for this new style. Assuming that AR is something that is coming to our UIs, head up displays in vehicles, AR via cameras in our phones, potentially moving to eye level, this new design language, with the concept of icons and affordances using lighting, might be an interesting approach. When you're overlaying reality with digital additions, having them lit appropriately, taking into account the ambient lighting (not just the levels, but the directions) and using that to place the elements makes them much easier to understand.

keenmaster 6y ago

Apple is easing its customers into AR, where 3D design will truly be seen in 3D form and won't just be an illusion.