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

Neumorphism in User Interfaces

uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#51

Post by DonHopkins »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #30
stan_rogers wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Greek word for "shape" has had a longer history than computer science. I'll grant you the use in mathematics, since it's difficult to talk about geometry without talking about shape, so it's highly likely that even people like Thales were using it back in the day. This is the same thing as people insisting that "theory" as used in science has somehow been co-opted and misused by laypeople. The fact of the matter…

Nobody uses the greek word anymore. It is therefore invalidated. Morphism is currently used in things more fundamental than geometry, specifically category theory. Look it up on wikipedia, it's official. This medium article is far away from official. What gets me is that some designer out of nowhere can repurpose the word because it sounds cool. Seriously nuemorphism? This is the inception of a buzzword, created lite…

Deepak Chopra's got you covered.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

How about Quantumorphism? All of the buttons and labels have fuzzy blurry edges, and you can't tell if something is a label or a button without touching it, and the act of touching it changes it.

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#52

Post by yissp »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #31
ScottFree wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I call it Paleo design Go for it. Come up with some rules + create some examples + market the hell out of it + charge for training classes = profit!

Arrows are artificial to the eyes. They never existed in nature. However, people have been recognizing hand signals for years. Paleo design involves replacing all flat arrows with a photorealistic picture of a hand curled into a fist with the index finger pointing at the subject. That's a free lesson in paleo design for you!

We've found evidence of bows and arrows from at least 60k years ago. I think that plenty old enough to qualify as "paleo" :)

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#53

Post by allworknoplay »

fragsworth wrote: post #33
thatsenough wrote: post #17

> This shot by Dribbble user alexplyuto gained over 3000 likes and pushed the trend forward. [1] That mockup is aesthetically pleasing, but from a usability perspective it's terrible: every UI element looks like a button. The progress bar (?) looks like a slider. How do users know which elements they're supposed to interact with? Why do we make the same mistakes over and over? [1] https://miro.medium.com/max/3200/1*g…

That progress bar doesn't even make sense. For "cash available"? What kind of progress bar makes sense for that? Having available cash in some shitty company's account is not a goal you want to reach. It is unfortunate that people focus on such superficial aspects of design, especially in UI design. When there's some trend showing up, you'll see countless people talking bullshit about aesthetics and how pleasing thin…

Your pre-existing balance is $100. You just deposited another $100, but it's not yet available. You have $100 available, so the "progress bar" is at 50%.

Not saying I think it's useful to show as a progress bar, but it's not abnormal.

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#54

Post by virtualritz »

_bxg1 wrote: post #41

I'm one of those weird people who's missed skeuomorphism ever since it fell out of favor. It had so much more charm than the soulless, flat interfaces we get these days. And honestly it was more intuitive too. The accessibility issues with this new style definitely need addressing, but given that I'd be excited to see things move back the other way some.

Indeed.

But there is another aspect besides the aesthetics.

I regularly witness that especially seniors using contemporary smartphone apps or websites have real difficulty telling information apart from interface because of everything being flat.

"Oh, this is actually a button – ...? – how do you know this?"

When my ma asks me this I don't have a good answer other than: "I just know.". Which is terribly telling from a UX perspective.

I studied UX at uni, many moons ago, when it was still called 'HCI' (human-computer interfaces).

Interestingly, how an interface was rendered was never of any consideration or part of the curriculum at the time. I wonder if it is today when people study UX?

In the 90's/early 2ks, when I was at uni, all interfaces elements on all OSs where somehow 3D. Except for menus. I guess that's why. It was accepted that mirroring a physical element, even if highly stylized, was the way to go.

But then there were also style guides for every platform.

While this is not related to the topic it is somehow connected. Best practices for any OS are regularly ignored for unified platform experience between the different incarnations of an app these days.

And so I often wonder wtf. happened to all the knowledge we accumulated in this field when I see contemporary apps or websites.

As for 'skeuomorphism' -- it still exists in it's best from (imho) from the early 2000s, in some modern apps. For example the Soundbrenner one comes to mind [1].

[1] https://www.soundbrenner.com/themetronome/

[edited for typos]

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#55

Post by pacaro »

egypturnash wrote: post #34
overcast wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with all these crazy textures, drop shadows, and chunky buttons, is that they get tacky very quickly. While plain simple layouts are timeless.

I don't think the discipline of computer user interfaces has been around long enough to say anything is "timeless". I am sure people making advertising art in the 1950s thought their work was "timeless" too but from a modern perspective there sure is a distinct look; today's Apple-led "minimalism" will probably look just as archaic most of a lifetime later.

¿Apple-led "minimalism"?

IIRC apple were the last to get off the skeumorphism train. Microsoft's metro look was the first significant player in this round of the minimalist trend

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#58

Post by fiblye »

overcast wrote: post #7
egypturnash wrote: post #2

A few years down the line we'll see people experimenting with bringing in more textures and decorative details and then, hey, here we are back in the world of faux leather-bound planners and music players made out of jeans and whatnot. And I, for one, will be delighted, because I've been tired of everything having to be flat shapes on bright white backgrounds for at least half the past decade.

The problem with all these crazy textures, drop shadows, and chunky buttons, is that they get tacky very quickly. While plain simple layouts are timeless.

People thought Windows 8 looked awful when it launched 8 years ago. It looks awful now.

People have been complaining about flat design since it got introduced, but entry level designers have been forcing it for a whole decade now all while users have been complaining about being unable to find out what’s even usable. It’s a timeless mistake, that’s for sure.

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#59

Post by tomc1985 »

virtualritz wrote: post #54
_bxg1 wrote: post #41

I'm one of those weird people who's missed skeuomorphism ever since it fell out of favor. It had so much more charm than the soulless, flat interfaces we get these days. And honestly it was more intuitive too. The accessibility issues with this new style definitely need addressing, but given that I'd be excited to see things move back the other way some.

Indeed. But there is another aspect besides the aesthetics. I regularly witness that especially seniors using contemporary smartphone apps or websites have real difficulty telling information apart from interface because of everything being flat. "Oh, this is actually a button – ...? – how do you know this?" When my ma asks me this I don't have a good answer other than: "I just know.". Which is terribly telling from…

> And so I often wonder wtf. happened to all the knowledge we accumulated in this field when I see contemporary apps or websites.

Why not ask the graphic "designers" responsible for all these contemporary UI atrocities?

They'll tell you think you want skeumorphism, but really don't, so accept what they deign to build for you and be quiet

Re: Neumorphism in User Interfaces

#60

Post by Izkata »

delusional wrote: post #45
viraptor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That progress bar doesn't even make sense. For "cash available"? What kind of progress bar makes sense for that? Savings goal. Credit limit. Mortgage. It would be badly named, but it's not completely stupid.

I interpret the credit limit label right below to be the label if the progress bar.

That's exactly what it is; off to the right it says "$220 / $1000", about 1/5th, which is where the bar is.
Post reply on HN