(Reposts are fine when a story hasn't had significant attention in the last year or so, but this one has, so it counts as a dupe. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)
I enjoy reading pieces like this because I try to imagine myself as the antagonist – the evil designer who is intentionally trying to remove depth and make color contrast worse
The antagonist doesn't exist. What this post is lacking is any sort of coherent theory on why we created and deployed the uniformly "worse" designs over the last decade since iOS 7[1]. Someone thought it was a good idea. Actually, it is a rather large number of people. Why do we have the design we do?
I think because it's easier. The skeuomorphic designs take thinking, actual design work. The flat UI elements essentially design themselves. Of course designers are going to gravitate towards having to do less and having to think about it carefully. That's work. People hate work, and it opens you up to criticism. If you do the same as everybody else you're relatively insulated from criticism.
Flat UI is mostly crap, but it's going to take a lot of people complaining a lot more vehemently to get anything to change.
Consider that prior to “flat UI” we had that glossy highlight look on almost everything which definitely hampered readability: the Windows 7 Win32 default menubar tops my Hall of Shame just for how inescapable it was (e.g. turning off Aero Glass didn’t affect menubar styles)
Anyway, I’m still sticking with flat-ish, minimal UI - the leather look in iOS notes was a cute gimmick, but it gets old and would require retexturing in every release to stay fresh - no doubt Apple didn’t want to have to do that every year until iOS ceases being relevant.
I remember another article that we moved away from skewmorphic design patterns because people understand that the things that the UI lives on a touchscreen and many of the cues for skewmorphic design aren't needed. Still some remain like for example settings are a set of gears.
Before large screen smartphones people had to be trained on how to use it and skewmorphic design made more sense. What is needed though is visual cues though that work with flat design. Cards for example that can be swiped right or left. Turning up contrast can be changed by going into the accessibility part of settings but it seems like many accessibility features should be more apparent to more users because of its utility to a larger set of users.
I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but imagine if Instagram released an update to their app to make it look like it did in iOS7. People would uninstall the app. They would be laughed at.
It isn't because current design trends are 'better', but they are exactly that, trends. If you don't keep up your app will look dated. To my unexperienced eye, the iOS7 design looks like the buttons take up way too much space; they are too visually interesting and distract from the content. But that isn't an objective take, it is just that I'm used to the current trend.
I could write about how Members-only jackets and moonboots were the hight of usability and design, but they were just a passing fashion. Nothing is really gained or lost, just changed.
Perfect! Also imagine the UI designer suggesting something like iOS7 for their client, is simply not feasible.
I also think this is more about what is the current trend and this isn't exclusive to UI design. Clothes from the 1800-1900 also look cool, but no one is wearing because they're going to look weird to the eyes of everyone else.
The writer might try to consider these beloved icons from the perspective of their creators instead of their consumers. Are they quite sure it’s something about the icons that they miss, not something about the time and place in their life? Sometimes I miss the “green text” days, but there’s nothing about those computers that needs to be preserved and hasn’t been. If you really like an artistic style from the past, find a way to collect or create it that befits the modern world, which might have been what these icon designers originally did to bring them out of their imaginations and onto the screen.
He mentions sacrificing usability in favor of making the visual design more beautiful, but the examples he gives as "beautiful" elements are often MORE usable! The settings options with inline actions save the user a click. The toggles with gripper bars and "on/off" labels convey information to the user. Calling simple/complex designs more or less attractive is a matter of opinion but USABILITY can be quantified and that's had a serious loss with the wave of flat design
Flexibits recently launched a new contact app for macOS called Cardhop.
While the UI still shifts a little too far to the 'flat trend' for my liking,
they thankfully hired the very talented David Lanham to design
the beautiful application icon.
sadly, if you go to the Cardhop website now, you see a flat and bland icon that looks like it took 5 minutes to create - while the original from 2017 really was as beauty.
Well, Flexibits shot themselves in the foot and shifted significantly around then. I wouldn't go near that developers software ever again due to their hostility towards their longest users/fans.
Curious what you are referring to. I often try to find the optimal calendar app, and while I know Fantastical isn't it for me, I am curious if there is an overarching story/reason why that I'm not aware of.
It was the typical subscription monetization move. Except the lack of hubris and overall tone from the developer after removing features that were paid for in previous versions put the icing on the cake.
Fantastical and Drafts were the two apps I used daily. The developer needing to get more money from me completely ruined my ability to use the app in the same ways I could previous, without having to constantly decline/ignore the 'upgrade' options that I'd actually already had previous.
It's then I knew, that supporting small indie developers is just as risky if not more so, than a large company. I've since never put my eggs into any app basket without seeing the woods through the trees and avoiding the inevitable.
It's lame from a social standpoint that subscriptions are fracturing the indie software user community. But, it wasn't paying the bills to have people half-using all the apps. You named two apps that have released features and improvements at a furious pace since they went subscription. That's great for users who are all-in and wouldn't have been possible if accommodating you.
Classic business-of-software holy war stuff. Some people were angry that Fantastical moved to subscription. They also moved Cardhop into the subscription for non-grandfathered users.
For actual users of Fantastical 3 and Cardhop 2, it's been nice to get new features without having to wait for a Fantastical 4.
Taste is a constantly evolving thing. I am sure we are actually already in the midst of a shift away from flat design in certain more advanced design circles. Crucifying old styles can be helpful, especially when a new design flavor is explicitly reactionary, but is it not obvious that the trend from a decade ago is no longer trendy?
I am also somewhat doubtful that flat style was tied to specifically iOS 7, as opposed to the general zeitgeist of 2013.
> I am sure we are actually already in the midst of a shift away from flat design in certain more advanced design circles.
Are we though? This article was written six years ago and designs don't seem to have changed all that much since. Considering this article is complaining about how much design has changed in the 3-4 years leading up to the post, the fact not much has changed after twice as much time has again past suggests that flat design might be inherently desirable and not a trend.
I suspect we will need some sort of technological shift to occur before design languages change dramatically. Perhaps the introduction of something like being able to have real-time 3d models as icons.
That change was a reaction to practices that were built-up on the previous few decades. When you reach a saturation point, change happens fast, but it's not fast overall.
> More ugly wire-frame skeleton design compared to it's original counterpart. Where is the call to interact with any of these elements? Where is the hierarchy?
Is it just me that finds the old iOS settings design ugly, and not* the new one? I think the new design is a vast improvement. I guess you could say that heavy-handed gradients and drop shadows exhibit more personality than the flat design, but so do children's toys & interfaces compared to professional tools & interfaces.
I'm not sure what the author means by "call to interact" in this sentence. Are they referring to the right arrows and how they've been muted? Maybe they mean the on/off switch indicators that are put front and center in the old settings screenshot, but are scrolled off-screen in the new settings screenshot(even though they're still present in the new UI).
I also don't understand the "where is the hierarchy?" question. They hierarchies of the old and new settings panes are strikingly similar. Maybe if the author cared enough to show the same things in each of the screenshots it would be more clear. It feels disingenuous to me.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Yes, too much skeuomorphism is bad, but going too far to the other extreme and making everything flat and washed-out is bad too. It is important to have visual cues about, for example, where the controls are.
IMHO, Apple his peak design with the original Aqua UI. You could tell where all the controls were, but they still didn't look like physical controls. They were unique to the digital space, and unique to OS/X, and they were a joy to look at. Nowadays the MacOS UI looks like a bad copy of Windows.
(By far Apple's worst sin in this regard is invisible controls that only appear when you hover over the right part of the screen. Sometimes these even share screen space with visible controls, and cause the visible control to move when you hover over it. If you don't know this is coming, you end up clicking on something different than what was there half a second ago when you moved your mouse over it. Madness!)
Attractive design is like a ... choose words carefully here ... love affair. Exciting at first, but after the first few hundred interactions, it comes down to practicality, not how cool or pretty it looks.
Thus taking a skeuomorphic image of a photo gallery and one of a calendar, and abstracting both, is not a bad thing. But, for example, abstracting them to have the exact same visual cues, as the Android 11 icons for "Gallery Go" and "Calendar" have, causing me to tap the wrong one even after hundreds of uses, is bad.
But no cure for a love affair that has gotten boring than... a new love affair, right? Or is there? A boring, but stable marriage. Like the MATE Desktop on Linux, which has stuck to the tried-and-true taskbar idiom even as the OS that pioneered that has gone off in other directions. Or an unskinned web page that still shows links in underlined blue.
You can't animate the part of a static image that is providing you with "jean" or other texture.
Little by little, the detail should start to come back but it will no longer be static detail. Especially with VR/XR, I expect this type of realism to return.
> Examine your app for hard-coded UI values — such as sizes and positions — and replace them with those you derive dynamically from system-provided values.
I think there are some reasonable points about flat design here, but they're a bit lost in the noise. This is really "man shakes his fist at the wind" territory when he's railing against nearly identical Settings screens just because some of them include an action in-line.
I also feel like points about hover / active states didn't really make much sense, those always are more obvious when you can move your mouse or display an extra loading icon when "active", gradients aren't exactly a huge UI win
Also, I must say, the UX in general of apps is much more consistent now, in no small part due to this unification - surprised to see no discussion of this in a pros/cons style
Love skeuomorphism! But do system preferences, buttons, switches need personality? The examples in the article are clearly cherry-picked. I think flat design is fine as a minial and accessible way to design important interfaces.
The problem with ubiquitous apps (or almost anything) having "personality" is that a large number of users may not like that particular "personality" and, from a UX standpoint, it may not serve a large number of particular use cases. Instagram is no longer a niche project.
I would argue the death of personality is more attributable to growth and optimizing for mass market dominance. There's a reason mom and pop business can be quirky and Citi and McDonalds can't.
It's not shocking to see yet another "good ol days" design post, but it is exhausting. I feel like this path has been tread so many times we're down to the bedrock. I know why we're doing this again, but lord it's so exhausting.
As someone who's familiar with both the design and development worlds, I know there are a multitude of good and understandable reasons for the changes in common design language over the years. Would you believe that identical blog posts were written back in the high point of skeumorphism wishing for a return to the simplicity of just having text, links, and colors?
I would argue that this visual identity is Apple's, and it is its own personality, and I am quite sure they are not too happy about everyone copying it.
>They completely butchered the contrast and initial readability to appease the 'flat' trend style. The personality died.
This line like most of the others in the article is hyperbole and subjective opinion presented as a statement of objective fact.
My own subjective opinion is that skeuomorphism is a lot of unnecessary elements that exist for the sake of design and the designer. Extra borders, boxes, gradients, and contrasting menu bars and buttons are unnecessary noise and useless distraction for interacting with content. I don't want to see a different colored fixed menu as I scroll that is always reminding it is it there. Flat design gets out of the way between reader and content.
My opinion is that developers have also rolled into designers, and creating all these beautiful multi layered gradients and high end assets were impossibly hard to translate for web ux and often not exactly do-able with css.
(Reposts are fine when a story hasn't had significant attention in the last year or so, but this one has, so it counts as a dupe. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.)