The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design • Hacker News Board

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#161

Post by Lammy » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

harrygeez wrote: post #157

Lammy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I went through the opposite process. I was a huge fan of Android up to and including KitKat, and I thought Holo was great. My enthusiasm for the entire platform disappeared as soon as Lollipop came out with the dreadful new Material UI. Even with themes I just hated using it on every level and eventually switched to an iPhone.

Material UI and iOS both look more similar than ever. I'm not sure if aesthetic would be the reason to go for an iPhone

It was a lot of things around that release. The look, the feel of the "cards" everywhere, the deprecation of power-user features in the name of security (like full SD card read/write access for apps). Totally the right trade for a dumbed-down-but-safe mass-market OS, but that's not why I liked Android. When presented a wannabe iPhone I prefer the real thing :p

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#162

Post by reaperducer » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

There is still some "fun" left in macOS, but it's harder and harder to find.

Three examples: Enlarge the network icon for a Windows, or unknown computer, and you'll see the monitor has a BSOD on it.

Enlarge the icon for Mail and you'll see the postmark on the stamp reads, "Hello From California."

Enlarge the icon for Pages, and there's a fun little travelogue.

There used to be an Apple program that had the famous "Misfits" text on it. I thought it was TextEdit, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#163

Post by fladd » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

on_and_off wrote: post #111

alxlaz wrote: post #10

I don't really care about "fun", but I just can't find the words to explain how happy I am that there's a chance we might put all this flat madness behind us. I'm looking forward to: * Not having this conversation with my mom (who, at 60+, is remarkably adept with computers but hey, we all run into trouble sometimes) over the phone anymore: Me: Okay mom, now press the "Edit" button Mom: Which one's the edit button? M…

> Not hovering everything for five minutes until I can figure out what I can click I really like the way material addresses this : any clickable element should use the primary color of your app. This way, no guesswork. Button, switches, icons, links, they all use the same action color so if something uses it, you know it has to be clickable.

Except that every app can have its own "primary" colour, so you have to learn as many rules as you have apps, instead of one if a button would just look like a button.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#164

Post by tuatoru » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

Nielsen Norman Group have been criticising flat design for a long time.

One of the major criticisms is that over time they cause even experienced users to become hesitant and uncertain.[1]

That right there should have been enough to squash flat design.

[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design-long-exposure/

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#165

Post by coldtea » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

The post, describing the new iOS 14/macOS icons:

>Some of them depict physical objects in a style that can only really be called skeuomorphic

No, this style cannot really be called skeuomorphic. You cannot have "skeuomorphic" icons. Neither etymologically or semantically.

Skeuomorphic etymological comes from Greek for "appliance like".

And semantically it's about GUIs (key distinction: GUIs, not icons or images) emulating real world objects.

A movie player interface that looks like a real-world DVD player is a skeuomorphic UI.

A movie player icon that looks like a TV set, or a Dick Utility icon with a hard drive and a pair stethoscope are not "skeuomorphic".

They are merely life-like depictions.

Same way, if an icon for my "Horse" app (say, a note taking app) is a realistically rendered horse, that's not "skeuomorphism". That's just an icon with a plain old "realism" painting/rendering of a horse.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#166

Post by lame-robot-hoax » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #90

asadkn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem isn't necessarily flat vs skeuomorphism - it's the representations that are not really representative to everyone. Try "Click that icon with the floppy disk to save." with a new user.

I'm actually genuinely curious if young people have an issue with the floppy disk icon. I feel like at this point it's meant "save" longer than it was actually physically in use.

For the first time, about two weeks ago, I told someone to click the blue floppy disk to save and they said “what’s a floppy disk?”

I’m only in my mid twenties and that even made me almost say “what the hell did you just say?” out loud.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#167

Post by SebastianKra » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #147

karaterobot wrote: post #26

People sometimes forget that the move to flat design was not entirely arbitrary and driven by fashion, it was driven by shifting technology and usage. Sure, fashion played a role, but in this case the main driver was the need to support devices of different resolutions. Scalability implies vectors, which implies shapes, fills, and strokes rather than bitmap assets. As a designer who made "skeuomorphic" interfaces bef…

> early human interface guidelines were wary of the concept of lighting Someone needs to go out and patent using multiple ambient light sensors to detect where light sources are relative to a screen, then shade skeuomorphic elements accordingly.

I remember seeing that implemented somewhere, but I cant find it.

Maybe someone can help...

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#168

Post by chefandy » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #35

alxlaz wrote: post #10

I don't really care about "fun", but I just can't find the words to explain how happy I am that there's a chance we might put all this flat madness behind us. I'm looking forward to: * Not having this conversation with my mom (who, at 60+, is remarkably adept with computers but hey, we all run into trouble sometimes) over the phone anymore: Me: Okay mom, now press the "Edit" button Mom: Which one's the edit button? M…

You've hit the nail perfectly with most of those points. For all its faults, the older styles of UI and icons made better use of screen space and conveyed much more information to the user. That should always have priority over a "designer" or "artist" imposing a "style" on the system. Any UI is meant to facilitate work, not create work in trying to understand whatever new trend. It's quite an uphill struggle, but I'…

Designer rant. I've been a computer user for 35 years, developer for 25 years (10 full-time professionally), *nix user for 20 years, and am currently in a degree program as a designer, and I've got to say that I disagree entirely. I think you're conflating your personal taste with functional design, and then again conflating functional design with styling and decoration. Interface design principles— as a subset of industrial design— have been theorized about, extensively tested, and refined for decades. Stylistic trends in visual representations of ideas in icons, etc. are much less clearcut.

At least in good quality commercial software, I can assure you that a designer's primary concern is usability. Visual cohesion and hierarchy, the flow of the eye around the screen, determining what a user actually needs to see and interact with during a task, and moving unnecessary elements to different views are all valuable tools a designer has to make a program more usable. They aren't merely stylists imposing trendy visuals on otherwise entirely usable software, and are certainly not "artists."

However, open-source interfaces are sometimes created by inexperienced enthusiasts or developers trying to "make it look nice" rather than experienced designers. Projects often don't impose the same quality control for interface design decisions as they do for code design decisions. That might lead some "artists" or "designers" to do things that designers (sans-quotes) should be doing. Designers should be more involved in open-source projects and open-source projects should court design contributions and stop downplaying the importance of good interface design.

Most users simply don't share your tolerance (preference?) for visually crowded interfaces that aim to cram as many elements on a screen as you can possibly fit with little editing or regard for what users actually 'need' on a screen for a given task. Your citing old school Linux UIs as a high point in UI design is portrays a perspective that doesn't have a ton in common with a typical user.

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#169

Post by sidpatil » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #98

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming is currently hating on OOP, in love with strong typing, and somewhere on the way from loving microservices to disowning ever to have spoken in their favor. Ten years ago, it was the opposite. So this particular quirk of thinking in groups doesn't seem to be confined to the design domain. Nor do "swings of pendulum" preclude the pendulum also having some forward momentum in sum. Think of it as a skier's wa…

I totally agree. I call it "throw the baby out with the bathwater" syndrome. Usually some technology has a particular problem, probably not huge, but as that technology becomes dominant, its warts start to grate on more people. So someone comes up with a new technology and says "Look! It fixes all the problems of Technology A!" And people who are new enough to the field who pretty much only have experience with Techn…

What you're describing is known as the hype cycle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Re: The Comeback of Fun in Visual Design

#170

Post by sidpatil » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #150

risyachka wrote: post #73

Sometimes you don't need to overthink it - design changes are required every few years to make a product look fresh and new. Not because previous design was worse, or not usable, or new is better, or boring etc.

The car industry has known this for years.

Automobile design has been heavily driven (pardon the pun) by two external factors: safety and emissions regulations. These serve a practical purpose/benefit to consumers.