I read these articles bemoaning Apple's skeuomorphic application UIs, usually evoking the spirit of Dieter Rams to put their point across. In this instance it's classed as "horrific, dishonest and childish crap".
I understand the strong feelings of dislike, but I'd much rather be pointed towards alternative designs or even better alternative apps as a means to get away from the designs. Malady without remedy never sits well.
As an alternative you need look no further than the return to clean, strong typography and unornamented clarity found to some degree in Android post 4.x and even more so in Microsoft's new designs.
Apple is ransoming the future for the present with these cheap design tricks while their competitors are busy building new design languages for the next decade. Apple's entire UI looks dated now relative to their competition.
Reading this I had a sudden flash why Apple might just be right.
The thing is that modern phones and computers are getting to the point where they can display texture to good effect.
Textures are very pleasant, comforting things to add to the UI of an application. Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
What alternative approach improves on this? I'm honestly curious here.
Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
How do people acquire their intuitions of the physical world? By interacting with it. Likewise with computers and software.
Better to to develop appropriate intuitions based on the thing you're actually using than to rely on increasingly outdated analogs.
I would like an alternative approach but I don't see anything in the links here that "just works" in the way that the fake-leather thing in OP just works. I also see stuff that seems nice-looking but not-functional.
If this sounds harsh or dogmatic, sorry.
But any image that falls off the edge of screen is broken as a far as usability-at-glance goes no matter esthetically pleasing it might be. Looked at from the point of view of static beauty, the Metro stuff is indeed far superior. Looked in terms of an app I would use, I see massively wasted real estate and texture that distracts from the task rather than helping it.
I'm just a programmer pretending to be a designer but who really is creating a Facebook client.
It feels like Metro copied really-world typography that works well for situations where people simply read/consume information but I can't see it translating to interaction.
The last quote in your links: "Fantasy User Interfaces in movies are your best friend." Sadly, it seem more Metro is a fantasy user interface. The fantasy user interfaces only exist for the one-way communication from the show-writer to the viewer. They work great for that. Total fail for something people use on an ongoing basis.
I know few will care about this rant but I am honestly a discouraged at how much of failure as an interactive interface Metro seems to be.
I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open going forward.
I think the article concludes with a pointer to the metro or whatever its called today UI that Microsoft introduced with Windows 8. That is the remedy you are looking for.
Comments
I read these articles bemoaning Apple's skeuomorphic application UIs, usually evoking the spirit of Dieter Rams to put their point across. In this instance it's classed as "horrific, dishonest and childish crap".
I understand the strong feelings of dislike, but I'd much rather be pointed towards alternative designs or even better alternative apps as a means to get away from the designs. Malady without remedy never sits well.
As an alternative you need look no further than the return to clean, strong typography and unornamented clarity found to some degree in Android post 4.x and even more so in Microsoft's new designs.
Apple is ransoming the future for the present with these cheap design tricks while their competitors are busy building new design languages for the next decade. Apple's entire UI looks dated now relative to their competition.
Yes.
Reading this I had a sudden flash why Apple might just be right.
The thing is that modern phones and computers are getting to the point where they can display texture to good effect. Textures are very pleasant, comforting things to add to the UI of an application. Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
What alternative approach improves on this? I'm honestly curious here.
Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
How do people acquire their intuitions of the physical world? By interacting with it. Likewise with computers and software.
Better to to develop appropriate intuitions based on the thing you're actually using than to rely on increasingly outdated analogs.
Here's some analysis of Metro's alternative approach.
http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487
http://www.riagenic.com/archives/493
http://www.riagenic.com/archives/526
I would like an alternative approach but I don't see anything in the links here that "just works" in the way that the fake-leather thing in OP just works. I also see stuff that seems nice-looking but not-functional.
If this sounds harsh or dogmatic, sorry.
But any image that falls off the edge of screen is broken as a far as usability-at-glance goes no matter esthetically pleasing it might be. Looked at from the point of view of static beauty, the Metro stuff is indeed far superior. Looked in terms of an app I would use, I see massively wasted real estate and texture that distracts from the task rather than helping it.
I'm just a programmer pretending to be a designer but who really is creating a Facebook client.
It feels like Metro copied really-world typography that works well for situations where people simply read/consume information but I can't see it translating to interaction.
The last quote in your links: "Fantasy User Interfaces in movies are your best friend." Sadly, it seem more Metro is a fantasy user interface. The fantasy user interfaces only exist for the one-way communication from the show-writer to the viewer. They work great for that. Total fail for something people use on an ongoing basis.
I know few will care about this rant but I am honestly a discouraged at how much of failure as an interactive interface Metro seems to be.
I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open going forward.
I think the article concludes with a pointer to the metro or whatever its called today UI that Microsoft introduced with Windows 8. That is the remedy you are looking for.