3 ms·
The difference is that glossy buttons have affordances that make them stand out from the rest of the interface. Which means that even after learning what is and
by ianstormtaylor 14y ago
The difference is that glossy buttons have affordances that make them stand out from the rest of the interface. Which means that even after learning what is and isn't a button, you can find them more quickly. Completely flat interfaces lose this advantage, but they also have other benefits.
- roc 14y agoLinks have more subtle affordances that make them stand out from web text and few people have a problem navigating that. Microsoft's problem isn't inherent in having a 'flat' design. It arises because of their alternately uniform (outlook), and seemingly arbitrary (metro desktop), color, contrast, layout and font-weight choices. They could conceivably shift to a design-language where those attributes could be used to hint at interactivity at least as well as a big shiny buttons.
- ThomPete 14y agoSure, but the thing is that after a while the obviousness can become a burden. I think they are doing the right thing by making sure that they get the fundamentals right and then they can add to improve. That is hell of a lot easier than if you have to fight with a and already established strong visual hierarchy. I would do exactly as they are. That seems to be the right approach for such a huge undertaking that this will be.