3 ms·

This is a somewhat unpopular opinion here, however I do think flat UI can be done right and is well fitted to digital UIs. It's possible to have a flat style b

This is a somewhat unpopular opinion here, however I do think flat UI can be done right and is well fitted to digital UIs. It's possible to have a flat style but have buttons that look clearly like buttons, and elements that have shadows and colors.

inigyou 3mo ago
The original GUIs were all flat because that was the default. A button was a rectangle with text in it. A checkbox was a rectangle with or without an X across it. Pure black on pure white, no colors or shades. Windows used this style until Windows 95. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it. It was largely clear what was a button and what was a checkbox. In hindsight it was certainly uglier than the 95 style (maybe just because I grew up with that) but it wasn't unusable at all. As you say, it was clear what was a button, what was a checkbox. I think it was because GUIs were mostly made out of standardized elements whereas today we have everyone trying to put their unique spin on every element.
- ssl-3 3mo ago
  I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but: In the PC space, Windows 3.x definitely had some skeuomorphic elements. This presents most-commonly with the minimize and maximize buttons[1]. We have to go all the way back to Windows 2 in before we find flatness. [1]: https://archive.org/details/msdos_win3_1 https://archive.org/details/msdos_win3_1
  - Telaneo 3mo ago
    And Windows 1 and 2 were barely even used. Windows 2 sold less than 2 million copies. Windows 3 and co sold 7-ish million. Windows 95 sold more than 40 million.[1] There's a lot less people to complain about Windows 1 and 2, and those people were probably a lot more experienced in the first place. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220418124401/https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/#:~:text=Windows%20sales%20in%201988%20(Windows,less%20than%202%20million%20(InfoWorld) https://web.archive.org/web/20220418124401/https://techland....

inigyou 3mo ago

The original GUIs were all flat because that was the default. A button was a rectangle with text in it. A checkbox was a rectangle with or without an X across it. Pure black on pure white, no colors or shades. Windows used this style until Windows 95. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it. It was largely clear what was a button and what was a checkbox. In hindsight it was certainly uglier than the 95 style (maybe just because I grew up with that) but it wasn't unusable at all. As you say, it was clear what was a button, what was a checkbox. I think it was because GUIs were mostly made out of standardized elements whereas today we have everyone trying to put their unique spin on every element.

ssl-3 3mo ago
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but: In the PC space, Windows 3.x definitely had some skeuomorphic elements. This presents most-commonly with the minimize and maximize buttons[1]. We have to go all the way back to Windows 2 in before we find flatness. [1]: https://archive.org/details/msdos_win3_1 https://archive.org/details/msdos_win3_1
- Telaneo 3mo ago
  And Windows 1 and 2 were barely even used. Windows 2 sold less than 2 million copies. Windows 3 and co sold 7-ish million. Windows 95 sold more than 40 million.[1] There's a lot less people to complain about Windows 1 and 2, and those people were probably a lot more experienced in the first place. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220418124401/https://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/#:~:text=Windows%20sales%20in%201988%20(Windows,less%20than%202%20million%20(InfoWorld) https://web.archive.org/web/20220418124401/https://techland....