Slashdot Mirror
Designers Criticize Apple's User Interface For OS X and iOS
Hugh Pickens writes "Austin Carr notes that a number of user interface designers have become increasingly critical of Apple's approach to software user interface design. Much of their censure is directed against a trend called skeuomorphism, a term for when objects retain ornamental elements of the past that are no longer necessary to the current objects' functions, such as calendars with faux leather-stitching, bookshelves with wood veneers, fake glass and paper and brushed chrome. A former senior UI designer at Apple who worked closely with Steve Jobs said, 'It's like the designers are flexing their muscles to show you how good of a visual rendering they can do of a physical object. Who cares?' The issue is two-fold: first, that traditional visual metaphors no longer translate to modern users; and second, that excessive digital imitation of real-world objects creates confusion among users. 'I'm old enough, sure, but some of the guys in my office have never seen a Rolodex in real life,' says Designer Gadi Amit. 'Our culture has changed. We don't need translation of the digital medium in mechanical real-life terms. It's an old-fashioned paradigm.' One beneficiary could be Microsoft, where the design of Windows 8 distances itself from skeuomorphism by emphasizing a flat user interface that's minimalist to the core: no bevel, no 3-D flourishes, no glossiness and no drop shadow."
If OS X and iOS are bad then iTunes is a crime against humanity. And I think that's because the original program came from outside Apple.
... probably until they go under. They'll acquire new ideas along the way with their massive piles of cash but what happens when those visions are at odds with The Great Master who has transcended to Nirvana? That's still a long way off but these rumblings of criticism just show you can make another interface that is completely the opposite of Apple and actually do well.
I feel like Apple's UI can be compared to Disney's take over of animation stylings. Before Disney, you could find a whole variety of animation styles. But the vision of Disney was to make everything round and smooth and beautiful. Every animation cel was to look like a masterpiece portrait -- because that was the general populace's desired art at the time. And that's what Disney was trying to make, animated art. You might have found a sharp edge on a villain like Jafar in Aladdin but the main character would be round and warm. Others tried to mimic the stylings and it became a de facto standard mostly because it sold.
Similarly, Apple has done their UIs to be as beautiful as possible. And they've done it really well and it's expensive (I'd imagine both computationally and price). And both Steve Jobs and Walt Disney appeared to be this monolithic men pushing this new way (in reality it's probably a bunch of artists in a cohesive team) but they've both come and gone. And Apple clings to that vision but the vision never changes.
What happened to Disney was another production house, Nickelodeon, slowly discovered that square and rigid corners were not only acceptable but Spongebob Squarepants became an icon. Gross humor could be applied to shows like Ren & Stimpy and some people enjoyed this more than the safe beauty of Disney. Disney has no grit because Walt Disney wouldn't allow it. Disney got into disagreements with Pixar about Toy Story 2 and I think it is best if they left Pixar separate from Disney despite the acquisition. Similarly in the future Apple will be usurped by someone who is willing to experiment and deviate. Jobs is dead so Apple is committed to his vision
My work here is dung.
Fair point, the use of the word need seems misplaced. English is not my native tongue ;) What I wanted to express is the following.
I handed my 83yr old , technical-illiterate grandma an iPad and she was able to use most of the apps because they resembled physical devices she knew.
Of course she doesn't "need" to use a digital calendar, or even an iPad. But that device and ample use of skeuomorphisms are enabling her to participate in a lot of places which were inaccessible for her before. It makes a lot of people feel familiar with usually (for them) almost frightening devices.
This is empowerment, and as long as nobody else is hindered I think the debate is quite pointless.
I was kind of opposed to the "tabletization" of OS X in the beginning, but now that I have used Mountain Lion for several weeks I have to say that it is a great idea. I enjoy Launchpad and the Notification Center a lot. Notes and Mail that behave exactly like my iPhone is a big plus, especially since Notes are like Evernote but much much faster. I really should mention Mail since I really thought that e-mail clients kind of hit a ceiling and that program proved me wrong. Reminders are ok but nothing spectacular. The deep App Store integration is also a good thing considering that OS X Lion and Mountain Lion breaks a lot of old software, Photoshop included, so when you get something from there you never have to wonder "will it run on my Mac?".
I think what Apple is doing wrong is breaking application support. I was very annoyed at not being able to use most of my games and a lot of software with the latest releases. I think when Apple was using Rosetta to run PowerPC programs they were doing fine. Once they took that attitude of "update your apps or else", it really made me appreciate all the hard work that Microsoft has done in that sense. I can still run a lot of old stuff in the latest Windows, and even the DOS applications can be run with a bunch of free emulators like DOSBox. There is no way to run an emulated OSX 10.2 or similar that I know of in a Mac.