31–40 of 58 posts
Nice job! Just missing a Facebook icon for my Facebook SSB.
Philosophically or practically: What's the justification for nearly everyone switching to flat design? Is there any articulable reason it's "better" than the rich, three-dimensional style[1] that was previously popular? Or is it just an arbitrary trend? Some say the change is driven by high-DPI displays. I disagree. I don't see any intrinsic reason that flat designs look better than rich, three-dimensional designs on…
Flat design is good as long as there are no important visual cues lost what elements can be interacted with and which are just passively displaying information. I really do still have problems in iOS7 to separate passive text elements from interactive text elements (formerly called "buttons"). Examples are the contacts list or the famous shift-button of the onscreen keyboard.
Thankfully in OSX 10.10, buttons are still recognizable as buttons, and I like that less radical flatness much more then iOS7. Although, in the current state the UI looks a lot like a Gnome skin which tries to mimic OSX though, I hope that improves until release.
Philosophically or practically: What's the justification for nearly everyone switching to flat design? Is there any articulable reason it's "better" than the rich, three-dimensional style[1] that was previously popular? Or is it just an arbitrary trend? Some say the change is driven by high-DPI displays. I disagree. I don't see any intrinsic reason that flat designs look better than rich, three-dimensional designs on…
pro-3d / anti-flat: details made possible by volume add to the icon's rich design, making its personality stand out, while flat icons results in boring, uniform design in comparison.
pro-flat / anti-3d: the apparent uniformity makes even slight nuances readily apparent and efficient to parse, making each icon stand out against other flat icons, while 3d icons are full of complex and distracting artifacts.
Bottom line: don't mix both, as the result is that 3d crushes flat with its rich details while flat makes 3d look needlessly busy and noisy. Consistency is key to reducing cognitive friction.
Icon sets suck. They aim for system-wide consistency, but can never achieve it, because there are N+1 icons to be replaced. They focus too much on any given design pattern (flat, round squares, dark, etc.), and forget the basics: icons should represent the program, they should be memorable. The only sensible use case for an icon set I can think of is a graphic designer who wants to practice.
It would be nice to solve the N+1 problem with a semantic hierarchy providing fallbacks, particularly in the case when only one application within a specific group is installed.
Philosophically or practically: What's the justification for nearly everyone switching to flat design? Is there any articulable reason it's "better" than the rich, three-dimensional style[1] that was previously popular? Or is it just an arbitrary trend? Some say the change is driven by high-DPI displays. I disagree. I don't see any intrinsic reason that flat designs look better than rich, three-dimensional designs on…
Gradients and juicy-fruit graphics are like candy -- they provide an instant and strong positive feeling, but they don't age well. If you had to eat nothing but candy, you'd hate the sugar-coated morass your mouth had become. In general, a flat icon tends to age better and reduce "eye exhaustion" (not a physiological thing, but a psychological one). Note that this applies mostly just to icons; the entire UI is not so…
Two thoughts on that:
1) Is that just an opinion? (If so, there's obviously nothing wrong with that.) Or is there some objective evidence?
2) How well do icons need to age? Realistically, how many icons in the wild will go 5+ years without a design refresh?
Philosophically or practically: What's the justification for nearly everyone switching to flat design? Is there any articulable reason it's "better" than the rich, three-dimensional style[1] that was previously popular? Or is it just an arbitrary trend? Some say the change is driven by high-DPI displays. I disagree. I don't see any intrinsic reason that flat designs look better than rich, three-dimensional designs on…
I've always hated that Sequel Pro logo, old one was much better.