4 ms·
"...a world of flat squares with Helvetica labels takes a whole lot more mental cycles to process than that beveled 3d button, and it always will." Do you have
by zevyoura 14y ago
"...a world of flat squares with Helvetica labels takes a whole lot more mental cycles to process than that beveled 3d button, and it always will."
Do you have a citation for that? I'm genuinely interested in reading more about it, because it seems somewhat counter-intuitive. The idea that simpler shapes would be harder to process visually is very fascinating to me.
- eyevariety 14y agoIts not that a simpler shape isn't easier to process, its that its harder to infer purpose when there is so little information (like in the case of Metro). A button is something that needs to be 'pressed' so it should look like it can be- and by doing so you understand that it is a button much faster. Donald Norman and Jakob Neilsen have long preached this and they have a bunch of info on affordances and why they work: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html More recently see Steve Krug's "Don't Make Me Think"
- zevyoura 14y agoInteresting, though I have to wonder if that's necessarily true; it seems that you could designate a button using only rectangles and solid colors in a way that would be clear and unambiguous (e.g. Google+'s buttons). Either way, interesting application of Norman's ideas of 'affordances.' DoET is a perennial favorite of mine.
- panacea 14y ago>(e.g. Google+'s buttons) They actually have slightly rounded corners, an outline and subtle gradient going from top to bottom that hint at three dimensionality and offers affordance. There's also a slight darkening on mouse-over which suggests they're interactive and can be pressed in.