Seems like everyone is against skeuomorphic design.
Three arguments in favor of skeuomorphic design:
- If Steve Jobs thought that texture and depth were the right choice… maybe they were. Steve Jobs had better taste than most people in history.
- Texture and depth are more “real” than flat design (and certainly better than cluttered, chaotic design). It is no secret that Jony Ives (and Steve Jobs) admired Dieter Rams. And some people point out that Rams’ design language was “flat”. But Rams designed products with depth—real, 3-dimensional objects. Maybe, when designing 2-D interfaces, depth and texture are better.
- I’ll call this point, “This is Better Than That.” Pick the one that is better designed (you can click the image for a larger view):
Evernote vs Notes
Word 2010 vs Notes
(I know that Word has a zillion more features than Notes, the point is that Word is [has always been] criminally ugly.)
Outlook Calendar vs iCal
(I have written about Outlook before.)
Gmail vs Mail.com
(Mail.com is not obviously skeuomorphic, but it has subtle depth.)
Word 2004 toolbars
(I include this only as a warning. A terrifying warning.)
Maybe skeuomorphic design is good. Maybe “real” textures and faked depth are good. Maybe skeuomorphic is better than the alternative. Maybe “flat” design is so clean it loses the connection to the user that Apple strives for.
Main point: As time passes, Steve Jobs will be recognized more and more as the genius and focused visionary that many people had long recognized him as.
Side point: Have you noticed more and more pundits and executives talking about “taste”? As in, “good taste [was]… almost completely nonexistent” (re: Samsung) and “Microsoft has never been cool, has never had good taste” or “Steve Ballmer has no taste”.
On those rare occasions when Steve Jobs would talk with the media, he sometimes described other companies as “having no taste”. Implying that taste matters and that Apple had taste.
“The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don’t mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don’t think of original ideas, and they don’t bring much culture into their products.” (1996)
Related video: (from 2006)
I’ve been questioning Amazon for years.
Now others are noticing it, too:
How over-valued is Amazon’s stock? Compare P/E (share price / earnings per share) ratios:
- Amazon: 3,500
- Google: 23
- Oracle: 16
- Microsoft: 15
- Walmart: 14
- Apple: 10
- Exxon: 10
(All the other companies make money.)
Maybe you do. That’s cool.
As soon as I saw it (back in March), I felt Microsoft had missed. Badly. (I have posted before about MS Surface in June and November.)
Later, I played with several Windows phones which only reinforced my position.
This is a useable, marketable, but not a great product.
Now other tech pundits are finding the courage to say the emperor has no clothes on.
UPDATE: another tech legend with a disappointed review of Surface.
You gotta know why you’re making something. “To not get left behind.” is not reason enough.
…on the internet (has it become our world?):
Flowchart of Superpowers #2
and Superpowers #1
I have linked to their work before. Make art.
The world in text
So beautiful I caught my breath. This could have been really cheap and crappy (or non-existent), but someone made art.
The Apple family tree: Apple platforms through the years
All of ‘em. Bless you Steve Jobs. (He made art.)
The greatest Halloween costume ever.
(Click through the eight pages) I hope the story is true.
Overcoming creative block
National Hero Registration
There simply is nothing better than great ideas, well executed.
Jeremyville CSA banners for Facebook.
So good. My favorite.
Call in sick.
We Love Typography.
Yes, we do.
Great Minds Like a Think.
Fun/chilling prints from The Economist
Neat. But not beautiful. Doesn’t it seem like this video (ad) is short of what it could be? Few people saw it, and no one remembered it. But it was a clever idea and could have been legendary.
The final inch really is the most difficult.