Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Dec 2012 22:59 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "In this article I'm going to talk about what flat design is, review what other designers are saying about it, and offer some tips on how to achieve it in your own designs." I give you one attempt to guess which 'design aesthetic' the next version of OSNews is inspired by. And yes, we will eventually get it done.
Thread beginning with comment 545791
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The more things change...
by kwan_e on Wed 19th Dec 2012 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The more things change..."
Member since:

"It's the basic principle of humans-get-bored-of-things-very-easily.
For some reason, after Winamp, no one has bothered trying to write anything designed to be skinnable.

Hm, but they did bother - remember WindowBlinds from Stardock? Also audio players, Sonique or Kjofol, both much more skinnable than Winamp; the entire shape & form of the UI could be changed in them...

...but, I guess, by then humans-got-bored (or maybe it meant that ugly skins are too easy to make?)

As I understand it, Stardock is a major hack. In this case, it would be Windows not being designed for skinning which is the problem.

Yes, ugly and unusable skins are very easy to make, but I would like to think that if operating systems were designed to be skinnable (ie, including official tools to do it), that would give professional user interface designers to a stable and thus more economically viable platform to work on.

Winamp3 tried to start it off with their Wasabi framework which could allow you to define window shape, but also script the behaviour of winamp itself. It was more than just new pictures in the way that Winamp2 skins were.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:

Windows is designed to be skinned, MS just doesn't provide any mechanism to do this, and put artificial roadblocks in place to keep you from doing it.

Why? I have no idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:

Maybe a leftover from how MS forbid OEMs to customise Windows images too much? (IIRC, in the first half of the 90s some PCs even shipped with OEM-specific shell replacements) To maintain consistent trade dress of Windows?

Though that still could be forbidden to OEMs while leaving the option open by default to users... OTOH, MS didn't try very hard to block it.

Reply Parent Score: 2