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

The Flat Design Era

layervault.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: The Flat Design Era

#51

Post by roc »

ianstormtaylor wrote: post #40
ThomPete wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your comment unfair and I am not even a MS user. Usability is so much more about how it work, not just how it look. All design systems will have some learning curve. A learning curve where you have to understand that everything a button is pretty close to being easy to learn. So in my mind, the problem you seem to think there is is a pseudo problem. I.e. it's not actually a problem. The Map is not the territor…

The difference is that glossy buttons have affordances that make them stand out from the rest of the interface. Which means that even after learning what is and isn't a button, you can find them more quickly. Completely flat interfaces lose this advantage, but they also have other benefits.

Links have more subtle affordances that make them stand out from web text and few people have a problem navigating that.

Microsoft's problem isn't inherent in having a 'flat' design. It arises because of their alternately uniform (outlook), and seemingly arbitrary (metro desktop), color, contrast, layout and font-weight choices.

They could conceivably shift to a design-language where those attributes could be used to hint at interactivity at least as well as a big shiny buttons.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#52

Post by rralian »

dpark wrote: post #18
jhermsmeyer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two most prominent buttons on the home page have subtle drop shadows and gradients. Google is actually a great example of restrained skeuomorphic design. If I had to advocate for just one aesthetic (which is silly on its face), I suppose restrained skeuomorphism would be the one.

For sure, Google doesn't seem to be headed toward "flatland", which was my point. Even Google, who seems to be clinging to "restrained skeuomorphism" uses flat, clickable elements in many places. I seriously doubt that they'd do so if their usability testing showed that users don't understand them. I've got to say, I don't understand why people keep mentioning drop shadows, though. Drop shadows seem fairly uncommon.…

> And mouseover is, in my opinion, too late to indicate what's clickable and what isn't. It's a nice confirmation, but the user should already know before they even move their mouse. If you've got a user aimlessly moving their mouse over things trying to determine what's clickable, you've failed at design.

I agree with this so hard I think I hurt my back.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#54

Post by jcromartie »

mikecuesta wrote: post #8

Flat design certainly has it's place in the world but it's important to keep in mind that ultimately it's just another aesthetic. Distressed, Glossy, Flat, Matte, Woodsy, etc, these are all just styles that lay on top of what is good information architecture and interaction design. It's not about flat design being right or wrong, it's more about whether it's appropriate for the job/task and audience/market. There are…

I think the difference is that "flat design" is not added to a good information architecture. It's just what you get when you resist trends to add textures and widgets that don't belong.

I think your own example illustrates it: a film without special effects is just a film.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#55

Post by jhermsmeyer »

ricardobeat wrote: post #38
jhermsmeyer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two most prominent buttons on the home page have subtle drop shadows and gradients. Google is actually a great example of restrained skeuomorphic design. If I had to advocate for just one aesthetic (which is silly on its face), I suppose restrained skeuomorphism would be the one.

That's affordance , not skeuomorphism. From Wikipedia: a skeuomorph is "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material, but was essential to the object made from the original material" The gradient and shadow on buttons are not just ornamental, they serve the purpose of conveying depth, and consequently that they afford being pushed (also, real-world…

I think we are splitting hairs here, but I agree that what we are talking about is affordance.

The reason why I use the term skeuomorphic in this context is because there are those who believe that what you and I believe is affordance is actually superfluous and ornamental.

What else is flatland design if not a complete rejection of the value of drop shadows and gradients as affordance?

Re: The Flat Design Era

#56

Post by mikecuesta »

jcromartie wrote: post #54
mikecuesta wrote: post #8

Flat design certainly has it's place in the world but it's important to keep in mind that ultimately it's just another aesthetic. Distressed, Glossy, Flat, Matte, Woodsy, etc, these are all just styles that lay on top of what is good information architecture and interaction design. It's not about flat design being right or wrong, it's more about whether it's appropriate for the job/task and audience/market. There are…

I think the difference is that "flat design" is not added to a good information architecture. It's just what you get when you resist trends to add textures and widgets that don't belong. I think your own example illustrates it: a film without special effects is just a film.

Well... you still kind of need to add colors, fonts, and even pixel perfection of elements, so in essence you are still doing that extra step after the initial IA, just with a certain restriction.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#57

Post by goldfeld »

ricardobeat wrote: post #38
jhermsmeyer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two most prominent buttons on the home page have subtle drop shadows and gradients. Google is actually a great example of restrained skeuomorphic design. If I had to advocate for just one aesthetic (which is silly on its face), I suppose restrained skeuomorphism would be the one.

That's affordance , not skeuomorphism. From Wikipedia: a skeuomorph is "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material, but was essential to the object made from the original material" The gradient and shadow on buttons are not just ornamental, they serve the purpose of conveying depth, and consequently that they afford being pushed (also, real-world…

Gradients and drop shadows on buttons are usually modelling solid color real world buttons; design uses an imaginary light source coming from above to mimic the way our world usually has a lamp or the sun shining up there.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#58

Post by pdenya »

Flat design looks lazy more than anything. I appreciate the effort good design takes and sometimes it's best to just get something simple out there quickly but I'd rather see browser defaults than styled buttons that purposefully have no hover states and callouts that really don't call out.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#59

Post by goldfeld »

notJim wrote: post #53

AHHHH!! How can you write an article about design when your buttons don't have HOVER STATES [1]? AGH, am I the only person in the world driven crazy by this? UI should respond , dammit! 1: http://www.layervault.com/

On desktop, yes, but how would a flat design respond on mobile/touch interfaces? I'm genuinely interested in approaches.

Re: The Flat Design Era

#60

Post by goldfeld »

pdenya wrote: post #58

Flat design looks lazy more than anything. I appreciate the effort good design takes and sometimes it's best to just get something simple out there quickly but I'd rather see browser defaults than styled buttons that purposefully have no hover states and callouts that really don't call out.

Simple doesn't equal lazy. "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing else to take away" --Civilization IV voice-over guy.
Post reply on HN