3 ms·

Design language, like any language is metaphorical. The thing that makes these skeumorphic designs work so well is that it kinda forces a consistent metaphor,

Design language, like any language is metaphorical. The thing that makes these skeumorphic designs work so well is that it kinda forces a consistent metaphor, and consistency above all else is huge for UX. The fact that it's based on things we've seen in real life is also helps, as it means we can reason about the UI with the same faculties we've spent our entire life training.

bromuro 4mo ago
Like the floppy disk for “save”? Or the old school phone receiver for “call”?
- reaperducer 4mo ago
  There's nothing wrong with either of those. No different than "windows" or "desktops" or "files." When was the last time you actually saw a file folder? Or a document separated by sheets with "tabs." 95% of computer users have never seen an ethernet cable, but they're still the symbol for networking. 99% of car drivers have never seen brake calipers, but they're part of the icon when my car's parking brake is on.
  - ranger_danger 4mo ago
    > When was the last time you actually saw a file folder? Or a document separated by sheets with "tabs." Every day because normal functioning adults still need to keep paper records of things.
- lonelyasacloud 4mo ago
  For icons and some aspects of functionality why not as a starting place? Where it falls down is when designers force too many of the paradigms of the RL original onto a platform that doesn't suit it [0]. [0] See for example the Mac OS X Address Book app https://www.betalogue.com/2012/01/15/abook6-dumb/ https://www.betalogue.com/2012/01/15/abook6-dumb/.
petilon 4mo ago
Why are designers not understanding this these days? I think one reason is that flat UI is super easy. Skeuomorphic is extremely hard to get right, and if you don't get it right it looks super tacky. Most people who have the word "designer" in their job title don't have the artistic skills needed to pull it off. This is why most designers are opposed to skeuomorphic. Somewhere in between is the right approach. The NeXTSTEP UI from the late 1980s is what we need to return to. It still looks beautiful today: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42
- vslira 4mo ago
  What’s the meaning of skeuomorphic design for a generation that has never worked with the original physical artifacts they’re based on, though?
  - Telaneo 4mo ago
    Consistency. Even if you've never held a telephone receiver, if it means 'call' in one place, it's very likely to mean the same thing in another. We could be using random hieroglyphs to the same ends, but people seem to always make their own (barring a few exceptions, like the hamburger menu). It's probably a better idea to use something with some grounding in reality rather than make your own from nothing, since doing that is hard, even for actual designers.
    - al_borland 4mo ago
      It also takes a long time for those purely digital ideas to filter out into the mainstream and get a shared name. For many years I would hear people same, “click the thing in the upper left corner”, “click those 3 lines up there”, or something similar. The term hamburger menu is starting to filter out there to the point where I feel comfortable using it. Even the term, hamburger menu, is a skeuomorphic name for a digital control. No one knows what to call those 3 lines, but everyone knows what a hamburger is. I’ve even seen some sites use a literal hamburger icon. It also took a long time to standardize on the hamburger menu. Many also tried to use an ellipsis for a long time. Some still do. Sometimes those dots are vertical… is that a thin hamburger or a vertical ellipsis? I heard one person trying to make the term “tots” happen for this style of menu… tatter tots to go with the hamburger. Contrast that to a “gear” menu for settings. They see a cog or a gear and everyone knows what that is without training, even if they aren’t a mechanic.
xg15 4mo ago
You still need some design experience and "taste" though. I've seen some B2B apps which used the Windows look-and-feel and looked absolutely awful: Actions wildly scattered through buttons, menus and context menus, panels and tabs nested several layers deep until the UI started to look like a canyon formation - and no icons or color at all, because I suppose those would have been "unprofessional" - so everything was in dull gray. (I think it's worth realizing how colorful the stock Windows dialogs and applications actually are through the use of icons, even despite all widgets being gray.) I still believe the Windows 2000-era UI toolkit is one of the best, because at least it gives you straightforward pathways to build a good-looking and usable UI - but you still have to want to do it.

bromuro 4mo ago

Like the floppy disk for “save”? Or the old school phone receiver for “call”?

reaperducer 4mo ago
There's nothing wrong with either of those. No different than "windows" or "desktops" or "files." When was the last time you actually saw a file folder? Or a document separated by sheets with "tabs." 95% of computer users have never seen an ethernet cable, but they're still the symbol for networking. 99% of car drivers have never seen brake calipers, but they're part of the icon when my car's parking brake is on.
- ranger_danger 4mo ago
  > When was the last time you actually saw a file folder? Or a document separated by sheets with "tabs." Every day because normal functioning adults still need to keep paper records of things.
lonelyasacloud 4mo ago
For icons and some aspects of functionality why not as a starting place? Where it falls down is when designers force too many of the paradigms of the RL original onto a platform that doesn't suit it [0]. [0] See for example the Mac OS X Address Book app https://www.betalogue.com/2012/01/15/abook6-dumb/ https://www.betalogue.com/2012/01/15/abook6-dumb/.

petilon 4mo ago

Why are designers not understanding this these days? I think one reason is that flat UI is super easy. Skeuomorphic is extremely hard to get right, and if you don't get it right it looks super tacky. Most people who have the word "designer" in their job title don't have the artistic skills needed to pull it off. This is why most designers are opposed to skeuomorphic. Somewhere in between is the right approach. The NeXTSTEP UI from the late 1980s is what we need to return to. It still looks beautiful today: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42

vslira 4mo ago
What’s the meaning of skeuomorphic design for a generation that has never worked with the original physical artifacts they’re based on, though?
- Telaneo 4mo ago
  Consistency. Even if you've never held a telephone receiver, if it means 'call' in one place, it's very likely to mean the same thing in another. We could be using random hieroglyphs to the same ends, but people seem to always make their own (barring a few exceptions, like the hamburger menu). It's probably a better idea to use something with some grounding in reality rather than make your own from nothing, since doing that is hard, even for actual designers.
  - al_borland 4mo ago
    It also takes a long time for those purely digital ideas to filter out into the mainstream and get a shared name. For many years I would hear people same, “click the thing in the upper left corner”, “click those 3 lines up there”, or something similar. The term hamburger menu is starting to filter out there to the point where I feel comfortable using it. Even the term, hamburger menu, is a skeuomorphic name for a digital control. No one knows what to call those 3 lines, but everyone knows what a hamburger is. I’ve even seen some sites use a literal hamburger icon. It also took a long time to standardize on the hamburger menu. Many also tried to use an ellipsis for a long time. Some still do. Sometimes those dots are vertical… is that a thin hamburger or a vertical ellipsis? I heard one person trying to make the term “tots” happen for this style of menu… tatter tots to go with the hamburger. Contrast that to a “gear” menu for settings. They see a cog or a gear and everyone knows what that is without training, even if they aren’t a mechanic.

xg15 4mo ago

You still need some design experience and "taste" though. I've seen some B2B apps which used the Windows look-and-feel and looked absolutely awful: Actions wildly scattered through buttons, menus and context menus, panels and tabs nested several layers deep until the UI started to look like a canyon formation - and no icons or color at all, because I suppose those would have been "unprofessional" - so everything was in dull gray. (I think it's worth realizing how colorful the stock Windows dialogs and applications actually are through the use of icons, even despite all widgets being gray.) I still believe the Windows 2000-era UI toolkit is one of the best, because at least it gives you straightforward pathways to build a good-looking and usable UI - but you still have to want to do it.