Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jul 2013 16:09 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "In its desire for authenticity, the Modern design movement curbed the ornamental excess of the 19th century, making design fit the age of mass production. Today, we're seeing the same desire for authenticity manifest itself in the 'flat' trend, which rejects skeuomorphism and excessive visuals for simpler, cleaner, content-focused design." Fascinating perspective on the whole digital vs. analog design debate by Dmitry Fadeyev.
Permalink for comment 567265
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Movements are misguided
by kwan_e on Wed 17th Jul 2013 04:57 UTC
Member since:

That it looks dumb when you visually depict something as a page, which it is then possible to scroll.

Except pages did use to scroll. We called them scrolls.

But more importantly, it is not genuine to visually depict that object as a page when the software defines it as something else.

Except the software defines whatever the it was written to define. If the software defines something as what it is in the physical world, then that's what it is in the software, making the argument moot.

If “design” is “how it works”, then “flat design” is “representing how a computer actually works”.

So it's not about how a computer works. It's about how we want the different file/media/concept to work in our minds and how to put that onto a screen.

In my mind, Wikipedia should look like a three dimensional network where I can see many linked pages and bring some closer and move some further away.

Flat design, or any other movement, doesn't bring that to the screen because the screen is fundamentally limited.

How do I best represent the metaphor that’s actually been coded?

So the question itself isn't even right. It's going about it backwards. You find the most efficient way to do something, then you code that. And you should code with enough flexibility so that other people who don't find that way efficient for them can switch to another.

Reply Score: 5