Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Skeuomorphism

skeu.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Skeuomorphism

#81

Post by a45l98 »

wwweston wrote: post #74
DevinDawson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a username like that, I want to see an analysis of Rebirth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReBirth_RB-338

Good - the skeu on Rebirth helps orient people on what they're using: a virtual re-creation of a piece of hardware. Bad - screen-rendered knobs are awkward to work with using pointer oriented input (mouse, touch pad/screen, stylus).

It's not just Reason and Rebirth. Everyone has been following this type of design for over a decade. Eventually I just gave up. Even the best software in the recording industry is hopelessly designed to resemble a physical piece of gear and to be clicked with a mouse. It is mind-numbingly stupid.

At one point Digidesign had this lower end product called a 001. ProTools is of course an image of a recording console on the screen. On their second iteration of this product, the 002 I think it was, they released an actual pseudo-console with some tactile knobs. For a moment I thought maybe they were getting a clue. But I don't think things have changed much. Recording engineers are still pointing and clicking. It is close to impossible to automate. (Of course they think they are automating, but they haven't got any idea what true automation really is.)

Either no one at these companies understands how to use a command line and parsed configuration files or, less likely, they do know but they do not believe their customers could ever learn.

I concluded I am better off using snd(1) than waiting for the recording industry to figure out how computers work (i.e. to become proficient in the ways of UNIX). At least the guys in the lab at Stanford have got it right. You can even use Scheme.

Re: Skeuomorphism

#82

Post by a45l98 »

nileshk wrote: post #51

The audio plugin example is typical because the vast majority of music production software exhibits a great deal of skeuomorphism. I personally don't like this because it increases the cognitive load in trying to figure out an interface, and I don't feel like it helps make things more intuitive than a non-skeuomorphic interface -- rather the opposite, it becomes more confusing. This is one of the reasons I like Ablet…

The other thing to consider is that audio processing is resource intensive. Many times you need to run many things at once and performance suffers.

Guess what else is resource intensive? Graphics. So everytime you have gratuitous graphics (e.g. a guitar plug-in that has one or two controls but goes to ridiculous lengths to reproduce a graphical image of, say, a guitar pedal), it takes away some of your resources.

I think you're right though. The interface is aimed at people who are used to looking at gear. That is the intended audience. They wanted to sell to the same people who were buying physical gear. Unfortunately it alienates anyone who understands how to actually use a computer beyond pointing and clicking or keyboard shortcuts.

I mentioned it in another comment in this thread, but if you want to see how things could be done in a "UNIX way", check out snd from the guys at Stanford CCRMA. It has a long history, longer than Ableton, probably as old as Sound Designer, the precursor to Pro Tools, though I'd have to check the dates. These guys clearly "get it". This is how computers and audio should intersect.

But, functionally, it's not a substitute for MOTU, Ableton or Digidesign, unfortunately.

Re: Skeuomorphism

#83

Post by mbesto »

This reminds me of one of the first biggest lessons I've learned about the web - make it better than reality. Sadly, Jakob Nielsen found this out in 1998 [1] and we still can't get past it.

> It is painful to use the Web, so we need to reward users: give them something new and better that they didn't get before.

[1] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980308.html

Re: Skeuomorphism

#84

Post by its_so_on »

I personally hate recognizing anything. If you think about it, even distinct text characters one next to each other are a skeumorphism from movable type.

Obviously the only correct interface is a simple vertical list where hovering over invisible areas of the screen reads you out loud an option and then clicks it. Actually why read it out loud at all, a skeumorphism from interacting with a person.

The only correct interface is a blank screen representing state with groups of pixels that turn off and on without any skeumorphism, but simply representing the state the program is in. Like the LED light showing whether your monitor is off or on, but 1280x1024 of them.

anything other than that is just art monkey fluff, designers butting into electronics where they don't belong.

a good rule of thumb is: if you recognize what's going on instead of having to decode it, you are dealing with bullshit overpriced overdesigned fluff.

Re: Skeuomorphism

#86

Post by bwkeller »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #73
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, what is so bad about this? http://skeu.it/image/24908403424 Because it reproduces a hypothetical real-world object, that not only doesn't make any sense (what is a sheet of paper hanging from a glass panel anyway?), but doesn't add any meaning to what this interface is supposed to do? You can use skeumorphism where it makes sense. The problem is that login form has no analog in real-life, so in this one…

> The problem is that login form has no analog in real-life, so in this one designer just went crazy for the sake of it. That is not a problem. A problem is: "it is hard to use", "it uses a lot of bandwidth", "people dislike it in A/B testing and buy less".

"it uses a lot of bandwidth" is exactly the problem that skeu-craziness is. Purposeless high-resolution backgrounds and animations waste storage space, bandwidth, cycles, and developer time. Time/money spent adding a fake leather texture is time/money unspent on functional aspects of a product.

Re: Skeuomorphism

#87

Post by tsahyt »

simba-hiiipower wrote: post #50

best line: FUCK USABILITY WE HIRED A 3D MODELER AND WE’RE GOING TO GET OUR MONEY’S WORTH! http://skeu.it/post/28492549355/crysonic

That thing is an audio plugin for music production. That sort of UI is what many producers want, because they want it to resemble the actual hardware they had two decades ago. Whether this thing was an actual product or not doesn't make a difference.

Re: Skeuomorphism

#88

Post by nileshk »

a45l98 wrote: post #82
nileshk wrote: post #51

The audio plugin example is typical because the vast majority of music production software exhibits a great deal of skeuomorphism. I personally don't like this because it increases the cognitive load in trying to figure out an interface, and I don't feel like it helps make things more intuitive than a non-skeuomorphic interface -- rather the opposite, it becomes more confusing. This is one of the reasons I like Ablet…

The other thing to consider is that audio processing is resource intensive. Many times you need to run many things at once and performance suffers. Guess what else is resource intensive? Graphics. So everytime you have gratuitous graphics (e.g. a guitar plug-in that has one or two controls but goes to ridiculous lengths to reproduce a graphical image of, say, a guitar pedal), it takes away some of your resources. I t…

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/snd/snd/snd.html

"Snd is a sound editor modelled loosely after Emacs"

As an Emacs user, I am very much intrigued and will have to try this out. Thanks!

Post reply on HN