Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is the Rise of Skeuomorphic User Interfaces a Problem?
An anonymous reader writes "The evolution of user interface design in software is a long one, and has historically tracked the capabilities of computers of the time. Early computers used batch processing which, is mostly unheard of today, and consequently had minimal human interaction. The late 60s saw the introduction of command line interfaces, which remain popular to this day, mostly with technical users. Arguably, what propelled computer use to what it is today is the introduction of the ubiquitous graphical user interface. Although graphical interfaces have evolved, in principle they have remained largely unchanged. The resurgence of Apple saw the rise of skeuomorphic graphical user interfaces, which are now starting to appear on Linux. Are skeuomorphic designs making technology accessible to the masses, or is it simply a case of an unwillingness to innovate and move forward?"
Obviously someone just swallowed a thesaurus and burped out "skeuomorphic".
The linked Wikipedia page describes it thus: "Many music and audio computer programs employ a plugin architecture, and some of the plugins have a skeuomorphic interface to emulate expensive, fragile or obsolete instruments and audio processors. Functional input controls like knobs, buttons, switches and sliders are all careful duplicates of the ones on the original physical device being emulated. Even elements of the original that serve no function, like handles, screws and ventilation holes are graphically reproduced."
First, I'd argue that most software doesn't emulate physical artifacts - we don't "pull" open file drawers for instance. Second, this doesn't sound like anything that's really about GUI, it's just prettying stuff up - much like the concept of "skins."
The Apple reference... oh sigh.
Three Squirrels
no, journalists are taught from day 1 to use simple language.
not for dumbing down, but for brevity - time is money, and if you don't have to reach for a dictionary, you shouldn't.
including the definition, or simplified part of it relevant to the article would have been appropriate and saved the ire of the /. hordes.
I think the problem is how do you come up with attractive designs that don't borrow from the physical world.
As opposed to the problem of coming up with attractive designs that do borrow from the physical world, which is a problem that iCal and Address Book, by virtue of looking like ass in their skeuomorphic versions, don't solve.