4 ms·
Trying to make the best out of the argument, I think you could put it this way: discrete, identifiable vector-like shapes with sharp edges (not only straight re
by ttuominen 14y ago
Trying to make the best out of the argument, I think you could put it this way: discrete, identifiable vector-like shapes with sharp edges (not only straight rectangles but also rotated ones and other shapes - he also emphasizes typefaces) do require a sufficient pixel density to look good. Skeumorphic photo-like bitmaps fool the eye by hiding the low pixel density using low contrasts between pixels (with natural looking gradients and anti-aliasing). I'm reminded of this when I look at classic 2D video game graphics from the nineties, they make this style really apparent. If it was only about flat rectangles, I'd agree. But I also think this seems to have really started with mobile Windows and the flat single-color rectangles.
- cma 14y agoBut mobile windows never used any rectangles that weren't aligned to the pixel grid... They didn't have rotated ones.
- ttuominen 14y agoYou're right, and I have to clarify that I don't necessarily agree with the idea that new display technology is the real cause of this new trend. But I do think we will be able to get better results from simpler, minimalistic designs with better resolutions.