3 ms·

interesting read, but I would have appreciated a few more examples of skeuomorphism other than the leathery ical. frankly I ask myself whether it's possible to

by jcfrei 15y ago

interesting read, but I would have appreciated a few more examples of skeuomorphism other than the leathery ical. frankly I ask myself whether it's possible to design a GUI without any skeuomorphisms at all. Wouldnt we be unable to use it? aren't we only able to interact with computers and with the world in general because we remember certain visual clues on what the expected behaviour is (eg. red & green traffic lights, light switches, door knobs...)?

wmf 15y ago
For people who learned computers at an early age (which is hypothesized to be everyone in the future developed world), UI elements are not metaphors but pure abstractions. And yet they have no trouble learning them.
fleitz 15y ago
It would be pretty much impossible. People are symbol processors, if they don't understand any of the symbols then they can't learn it. This is probably why car analogies are prevalent in the tech field, and higher dimensional spaces are difficult to understand. It's extremely difficult to understand what Mayan tablets mean because we don't understand the symbols. This is why things like a rosetta stone are so important, because they give us clues as to what symbols mean. Every symbol is evaluated in the context of the individual. Designing an interface with no 'skeuomorphisms' would be extremely difficult, it's arguable that roman letters themselves are 'skeuomorphisms' of the requirements originally for stone tablets. An interface with no skeuomorphisms is like a person who no one can relate to. It's the difference between learning a new language and learning a new word in a language you already know. "Good" designers have their own symbology so designers who are trained find other "haute" design easy to use. Since most people aren't "haute" designers it becomes difficult to relate to and use their designs. There's a great article out there about a hotel that installed really well designed light switches that no one could use but everyone loved once they figured out how to use them. "Haute" design is like C4, it has huge activation potential to overcome but once you overcome it, it's explosively powerful. However, the activation potential is a hinderance to adoption.
- mannicken 15y ago
  "People are symbol processors" No. "Since most people aren't "haute" designers it becomes difficult to relate to and use their designs." No. It's easy to judge how realistic or beautiful a face is, but much harder to draw it. Similar concept with design. I think you're making a fundamental assumption that design/drawing/visual disciplines are symbol-based, when they are not symbol-based. I highly suggest reading "Drawing on the right side of the brain". I've studied art, and in every drawing class something along the lines of "No, symbols are bad, boo egyptian eyes, switch to the right side of the brain" was said at some point.

by jcfrei 15y ago

wmf 15y ago

For people who learned computers at an early age (which is hypothesized to be everyone in the future developed world), UI elements are not metaphors but pure abstractions. And yet they have no trouble learning them.

fleitz 15y ago

It would be pretty much impossible. People are symbol processors, if they don't understand any of the symbols then they can't learn it. This is probably why car analogies are prevalent in the tech field, and higher dimensional spaces are difficult to understand. It's extremely difficult to understand what Mayan tablets mean because we don't understand the symbols. This is why things like a rosetta stone are so important, because they give us clues as to what symbols mean. Every symbol is evaluated in the context of the individual. Designing an interface with no 'skeuomorphisms' would be extremely difficult, it's arguable that roman letters themselves are 'skeuomorphisms' of the requirements originally for stone tablets. An interface with no skeuomorphisms is like a person who no one can relate to. It's the difference between learning a new language and learning a new word in a language you already know. "Good" designers have their own symbology so designers who are trained find other "haute" design easy to use. Since most people aren't "haute" designers it becomes difficult to relate to and use their designs. There's a great article out there about a hotel that installed really well designed light switches that no one could use but everyone loved once they figured out how to use them. "Haute" design is like C4, it has huge activation potential to overcome but once you overcome it, it's explosively powerful. However, the activation potential is a hinderance to adoption.

mannicken 15y ago
"People are symbol processors" No. "Since most people aren't "haute" designers it becomes difficult to relate to and use their designs." No. It's easy to judge how realistic or beautiful a face is, but much harder to draw it. Similar concept with design. I think you're making a fundamental assumption that design/drawing/visual disciplines are symbol-based, when they are not symbol-based. I highly suggest reading "Drawing on the right side of the brain". I've studied art, and in every drawing class something along the lines of "No, symbols are bad, boo egyptian eyes, switch to the right side of the brain" was said at some point.