I have read multiple articles on-line that say that the era of Skeuomorphic design on the web is over, and that a new era of so-called 'flat design' is now the new thing for developers, but do users really like the 'flat design'? I have not been able to find any articles that say what their users have thought, only ones that say it is the new standard of applications. Every designer that I have talked to also questions if people like it, but say they will get used to it fast.
I for one like to have a blend of both Skeuomorphic design and 'flat design' in my applications but I am starting to wonder if I should drop the Skeuomorphic design that I have in exchange for less buttons on the screen. So my question is, 'should I change it, or keep it the same'?
Answer
An interesting read by John Gruber on the shift away from skeuomorphism makes the argument that increasing pixel density resolves some of the issues that gave rise to certain skeuomorphic practices like shadows and gradients:
The trend away from skeuomorphic special effects in UI design is the beginning of the retina-resolution design era. Our designs no longer need to accommodate for crude pixels. Glossy/glassy surfaces, heavy-handed transparency, glaring drop shadows, embossed text, textured material surfaces — these hallmarks of modern UI graphic design style are (almost) never used in good print graphic design. They’re unnecessary in print, and, the higher the quality of the output and more heavy-handed the effect, the sillier such techniques look. They’re the aesthetic equivalent of screen-optimized typefaces like Lucida Grande and Verdana. They work on sub-retina displays because sub-retina displays are so crude. On retina displays, as with high quality print output, these techniques are revealed for what they truly are: an assortment of parlor tricks that fool our eyes into thinking we see something that looks good on a display that is technically incapable of rendering graphic design that truly looks good.
This is a phenomena that is not limited to user interfaces.
A similar transition is happening in cinema with HFR (high frame rate) films. In this interesting post photoshop creator and ILM visual effects supervisor John Knoll explains why 48 frames per second creates a "hyper real" effect which causes an "allergic" reaction in viewers as the makeup and scenery which compensated for lower quality 24 FPS is exposed for the crutch that it is:
Imagine you had the lucky privilege to be invited by Peter Jackson onto the set of the Hobbit. You were standing right off to the side while they filmed Bilbo Baggins in his cute hobbit home. Standing there on the set you would notice the incredibly harsh lighting pouring down on Bilbo's figure. It would be obviously fake. And you would see the makeup on Bilbo's in the harsh light. The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that film is not as sensitive as the human eye, so these aids compensated for the film's deficiencies of being insensitive to low light and needing the extra contrast provided by makeup. These fakeries were added to "correct" film so it seemed more like we saw. But now that 48HFR and hi-definition video mimic our eyes better, it's like we are standing on the set, and we suddenly notice the artifice of the previously needed aids. When we view the video in "standard" format, the lighting correctly compensates, but when we see it in high frame rate, we see the artifice of the lighting as if we were standing there on the set.
When it comes to skeuomorphic design, it is a matter of degree. On the one extreme you have the much maligned leather bound calendar, and on the other, you have the (increasingly) maligned ultra flat Win 8 Metro UI.
In the middle are the "glossy/glassy surfaces, heavy-handed transparency, glaring drop shadows" etc. As the quality of the displays users utilize to access interfaces improves, the less they will "like" the techniques that were developed to please the eye on lesser displays.
To answer your question, I would say that the current trend is not an abandonment of moderate skeumorphism requiring a totally flat design.
Gruber rightly qualified the trend as "flatter":
The lack of skeuomorphic effects and almost extreme flatness of the “modern” (née Metro) Windows 8 interface is remarkably forward-thinking. It’s meant to look best on retina-caliber displays, not the sub-retina displays it debuted on (with Windows Phone 7.x) or the typical PC displays of today. That said, I think there’s a sterility to Metro that prevents it from being endearing. There’s a reason you hear people calling for “flatter” UI designs, but not for “Windows 8 style” designs.
It sounds like you are already in the middle area between the two extremes, so it is hard to say whether you should change or not without some examples. However I would anticipate that much as the HFR films will result in new cinematic techniques, retina displays will open the field for new design techniques that may leave the skeuomorphic crutches from the past behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment