New subscriber and happy I'm here. Super keen insight particularly the comparison of modern → post modern architecture and the parallels to today. Interface design in particular is mired in homogeneity but brand design is almost equally infected. The challenge is creating experiences that are both usable (i.e. comprehensible, accessible, familiar etc.) but also allow some personality of the designer/organization to shine through. Interesting times!
I have to confess: I’ve read so many articles about this transition that I didn’t expect to learn much here and was mostly just checking it out! But this is easily the most substantive and best post on the subject I’ve read, and I appreciated the historical context you gathered and presented so well. Sick post and great read!
I can’t help but wonder why we have so little data or quantification in this discussion. I’m a designer so I’m happy to say e.g. “nah, this isn’t about data” whenever possible (lol), but in this case we are in theory evaluating something like usability (even if we’re also playing with style and aesthetics). It’s interesting to me that you never hear for example “oh, among people +65 skeuomorphic UIs outperform flat UIs by X%” or “task completion rates 3x with flat design elements for more advanced users” or what-have-you. Maybe the deltas aren’t there, but even that would be interesting!
Do we really believe that the great flat vs skeuomorphic debate has *no* measurable dimensions?! Or has design —perhaps for the better!— finally given up on pretending that there are elements of “science” to what we do?! I have no idea!
It's definitely interesting to watch history repeat itself at such a pace. I really agree that it's following a familiar path which you've demonstrated beautifully. I think it does go beyond aesthetic taste, just like the movements which had philosophical underpinnings.
Modernism sought a universal truth, which I think Web 2.0 Nielsen Norman era also suggested - there are UX patterns that should not be messed with. Then post modernism sought to dismantle the top-down order, through irony and the mixing of high and low cultural symbols. We're seeing something similar with Mondrian flatness x Koonsian chome.
But if that's true I wonder what that means culturally. Post modernism had a cynicism and relativism which made it fun, but ultimately without hope. Also weird that this entire thing is happening - babushka style - within an utterly post modern context. Perhaps the 'metaverse' will have its own classical-modern-postmodern movements.
I wonder if the return of shadows seeks to mirror 3D + haptic touch. A flat screen is no longer just a flat screen - it actually has texture through interaction.
New subscriber and happy I'm here. Super keen insight particularly the comparison of modern → post modern architecture and the parallels to today. Interface design in particular is mired in homogeneity but brand design is almost equally infected. The challenge is creating experiences that are both usable (i.e. comprehensible, accessible, familiar etc.) but also allow some personality of the designer/organization to shine through. Interesting times!
I have to confess: I’ve read so many articles about this transition that I didn’t expect to learn much here and was mostly just checking it out! But this is easily the most substantive and best post on the subject I’ve read, and I appreciated the historical context you gathered and presented so well. Sick post and great read!
I can’t help but wonder why we have so little data or quantification in this discussion. I’m a designer so I’m happy to say e.g. “nah, this isn’t about data” whenever possible (lol), but in this case we are in theory evaluating something like usability (even if we’re also playing with style and aesthetics). It’s interesting to me that you never hear for example “oh, among people +65 skeuomorphic UIs outperform flat UIs by X%” or “task completion rates 3x with flat design elements for more advanced users” or what-have-you. Maybe the deltas aren’t there, but even that would be interesting!
Do we really believe that the great flat vs skeuomorphic debate has *no* measurable dimensions?! Or has design —perhaps for the better!— finally given up on pretending that there are elements of “science” to what we do?! I have no idea!
It's definitely interesting to watch history repeat itself at such a pace. I really agree that it's following a familiar path which you've demonstrated beautifully. I think it does go beyond aesthetic taste, just like the movements which had philosophical underpinnings.
Modernism sought a universal truth, which I think Web 2.0 Nielsen Norman era also suggested - there are UX patterns that should not be messed with. Then post modernism sought to dismantle the top-down order, through irony and the mixing of high and low cultural symbols. We're seeing something similar with Mondrian flatness x Koonsian chome.
But if that's true I wonder what that means culturally. Post modernism had a cynicism and relativism which made it fun, but ultimately without hope. Also weird that this entire thing is happening - babushka style - within an utterly post modern context. Perhaps the 'metaverse' will have its own classical-modern-postmodern movements.
I wonder if the return of shadows seeks to mirror 3D + haptic touch. A flat screen is no longer just a flat screen - it actually has texture through interaction.
Really interesting and well-written, thank you!
Great piece, Ben, really enjoyed it!