Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Skeuomorphism

  • 11-06-2013 6:58pm
    #1
    jenzerr
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭


    Now with the release of iOS 7, and its complete new direction towards minimalistic design, it seems skeuomorphism is on the way out.

    For those of you not familiar, digital skeuomorphism is the mimicry of digital interfaces and the real world; for example, the Apple bookstore app currently has a design that looks like a wooden bookshelf.

    I'm curious as to examples of moving to more abstract design in other operating systems. I'm familiar with iOS and Mac OS so i have limited knowledge beyond Apple. I have been following the rejection of Windows 8 due to its abstract design, to a degree.

    Do you think skeuomorphism is necessary in the adoption of interfaces? Does abstract design lead to users being unwilling to learn an interface, despite the actions being the same?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • #2
    billyduk
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭billyduk


    I was never a fan of skeuomorphism myself, but I don't feel that abstract interfaces are the answer either (windows). If we are sacrificing intuitive interfaces to be "different", then we are failing as designers and UX professionals.

    From the screenshots i've seen, I don't think the new iOS7 pseudo flat design is "abstract", but I don't feel its as intuitive as I would have expected from a company like Apple either(although thats hard to say with accuracy without actually interacting with the OS). They certainly didn't go to the extreme of MS, but I still find the interface wanting and would have expected more care from a UX perspective.


  • #3
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    Merely substituting realistic visuals with abstract ones doesn't solve any problems. It's all about affordances, metaphors, context, your audience, how they think and their level of experience.

    Skeuomorphism, 'flat' design, minimalism, they're all just tools a designer uses, neither one is any worse than the other.


  • #4
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    jenzerr wrote: »
    Do you think skeuomorphism is necessary in the adoption of interfaces? Does abstract design lead to users being unwilling to learn an interface, despite the actions being the same?
    I do believe that skeuomorphism certainly did facilitate the adoption and/or understanding of the GUI. As time has gone on we became more and more familiar with the symbolism and the move to minimalism has been going on in reality for a long time - a waste-paper basket, became a stylized waste-paper basket or even just a red X in some software. It's happened slowly as had you seen a red X back in the eighties, it probably would have meant nothing to you.

    However, I do agree that a certain level of skeuomorphism probably needs to be retained, even if minimized. As we've seen with the Windows 8 fiasco, people do expect the familiar and faced with too steep a learning curve just give up.


  • #5
    billyduk
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭billyduk


    I think it breaks down into two levels of Skeumorphism. There is a basic level where icons etc. are used to apply an extra layer of semantic meaning to an element (button, settings menu etc.) to enhance the intuitive nature of a site or application and this is fine as long as its necessary for the end user through the potential risk of ambiguity. There is still a need for this as long as a digital divide exists.

    The second level of skeumorphism is the one I have the issue with; skeumorphism as a style. When executed correctly it was fine (although I never liked it personally, but thats the subjective nature of design UI styles), but a lot of people misunderstood the concept and went hell for leather with it, sacrificing UX usability principles in order to design a far too literal interpretation of the element. I always found this cumbersome, unnecessary and insulting to the end users ability to decipher information.

    At the end of the day styles will come and go, fit certain uses and not others and some will be subjective in their appeal, but we should never be sacrificing the end users needs to accomodate eye candy. Form always follows function.


  • #6
    Feathers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    billyduk wrote: »
    If we are sacrificing intuitive interfaces to be "different", then we are failing as designers and UX professionals.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    As we've seen with the Windows 8 fiasco, people do expect the familiar and faced with too steep a learning curve just give up.

    I'm not sure that I agree 100% with this idea for product design. Professionally, I'm coming more from a website background rather than applications, so it's not really something that you need to face day-to-day (apart from talking some UX designers out of trying to redesign the browser chrome to make it unintuitive.)

    I think though that if you're designing an application, be it desktop, web or mobile, that you don't necessarily need everything to be 100% intuitive off the bat. If your programme or product is modelling something abstract (i.e. not a thermometer or a calculator, etc.), there's going to be a learning curve to understand how the flow of the system works, the controls, etc.

    Good design needs to have a good flow, behave consistently in different parts of the system, etc. but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should be able to use it without reading the instructions. My camera is well designed, I can change a lot of settings now while using it by touch without even looking at the buttons, but I needed to find out what they did first.

    For example, people complaining about the log-in to Windows 8 on a non-touch device (like this guy). If you tell someone, just press a key on the keyboard & it will bring up the dialogue, it's not hard to use & he'll remember that from then on.

    I think at times with application design, people can shy away from innovation to make sure something is intuitive, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
    billyduk wrote: »
    I think it breaks down into two levels of Skeumorphism. There is a basic level where icons etc. are used to apply an extra layer of semantic meaning to an element (button, settings menu etc.) to enhance the intuitive nature of a site or application and this is fine as long as its necessary for the end user through the potential risk of ambiguity. There is still a need for this as long as a digital divide exists.

    I'd say that's just the use of iconography though, rather than skeumorphism. E.g. a home icon in my browser toolbar, isn't there to try to make my browser look any more like a town :)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement