I think sometimes we forget that Apple's primary audience doesn't even know what skeumorphism is, and certainly won't call it "regressive aesthetic infantilism" (it sounds cooler to write like that, so I can't exactly fault the author). But so what if it's an illusory metaphor?
Andy Mangold's appropriately-titled blog post "Skeuomorphism: The Opiate of the People" addresses the role of skeumorphism quite clearly, I think:
"Some people believe that skeuomorphism makes an interface easier to use, or more intuitive for the user, and I simply don’t buy that. But what hadn’t occurred to me is that it doesn’t matter if it actually does make it easier to use, all that matters is that it makes the average person think it’s easier to use. In reality, a user must take time to learn any interface, whether clad in faux leather or not. The skeuomorphism in iOS plainly tricks people that might otherwise walk away…"
[http://andymangold.com/skeuomorphism-the-opiate-of-the-peopl...]
People often quote the goal of effective skeumorphism as leveraging existing patterns (which just happen to be physical, not digital), to make an interface more familiar and easier to use. I think, if this is true, then it's rarely executed on that level. But if a user is more willing, more patient, and more inclined to go through a learning curve because of skeumorphism, I'd argue this is effective design.
Sometimes anti-skeumorphism sentiment sounds really similar to the "aesthetics don't matter as long as it works!" rallying cry. If aesthetics make it more pleasant to use a product, then the aesthetics serve a purpose.
While my personal opinion regarding skeumorphic design falls very much in line with the author's, I don't think that there is a contradiction in Apple's design philosophy.
The hardware is minimal because its true purpose is to let the software shine. It's a magical box that can become anything, from a calendar to a photobooth to a music studio. Apple's visual design choices in software have always seemed to fall under the skeuomorphic end of things (faux brushed aluminum?) and having a minimal hardware accentuates these flourishes.
Au contraire, people buy iOS for the beautiful hardware. Apple hosts mainstream events to reveal new hardware, not new software. Their most famous designer, Jony Ive, is a hardware man. At most you reduce the relationship to an equal partnership. But Apple's attempts to reduce software sales to commodities clearly shows that they consider software as intended to make the hardware shine.
True. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of Apple hardware, but the design philosophy of the hardware is minimal because the software is the focal point. In the end, the phone is a rounded rectangle of varying degrees of thinness. IOS is the reason why the iPhone is a joy to use: the metal does its best job to stay out the way. Responsive touch screens and awesome cameras allows the user to forget they're even using a phone.
Besides people have proved that they like Apple's approach to design. Whatever the philosophy is, if it has succeeded in the marketplace isn't it superior?
I, for one, am for more realworldness like this on these devices (not misplaced realworldness though).
Given that an iPad can morph into so many things that were formerly analog - books, synthesizers, effects boxes, instruments, the calendar, address book, notebook, etc. - it is quite comforting to distinguish these roles based on the physical features of their real world cousins if possible.
The traditional computer's interface put many, um, "interface" barriers between you and the thing you were supposed to be manipulating - keyboard, mice, gui in particular. With these touch devices, the barrier feels smaller and in some cases so good as to be non-existent - i.e. our natural ability to figure out things in the real world by poking and prodding is what is being carried over into the digital world this time.
SJ said "it feels great to be able to touch your music" (or something like that) when he showed cover flow on the iphone. What purpose does "touching your music" serve? The answer is right there in SJ's statement. If you show a texture on the iPad's screen, we probably feel it in some way when we touch it despite the absence of the tactile sensation.
I dunno, it sort of reminds me of the Beatles (another Jobs favorite). John being serious and political, Paul being silly and saccharine. The combination was part of the magic, and everyone had their favorite. I think if you fully digitalized the software, the overall package would be too severe. If you made the hardware whimsical, it would be sickening.
Part of it is that the hardware is a fixed thing. You have it or you don't, and its job is to contain the software. With the software there is a lot more freedom of expression because there is choice. Apple should take that further and let people swap out the official apps.
Nokia's phones show some signs of whimsy. I think you are right about the severity of all tech design, but I'm not convinced hardware can't be whimsical.
Oh, I'm not either. But you'll note that Nokia runs Windows and Symbian, which are pretty much both all-business. They also carry a lot more models, which broadens the scope for the hardware.
The computer itself is different because it's just the space where the application lives. Complaining about the duality is like complaining that Dieter Rams' radio doesn't burst into fire whenever someone tries to play The Beatles on it.
The radio, the computer, the modern art museum are very different from their contents. They may be achievements of design by themselves, but are ultimately meant to disappear and give way to the content -- music, software, art. The content may well be kitschy (why not, I think in 2012 we're way past the 'kitsch is bad' presumption), but it doesn't mean the space should be -- in fact, the space might be the one place where kitsch is an objectively poor idea.
Think brutalist architecture covered with overgrowth. In my opinion, minimal shines in present of the fancy, and vice-versa. And personally, I like the permanent to be minimal, and the fancy to be transient.
I read these articles bemoaning Apple's skeuomorphic application UIs, usually evoking the spirit of Dieter Rams to put their point across. In this instance it's classed as "horrific, dishonest and childish crap".
I understand the strong feelings of dislike, but I'd much rather be pointed towards alternative designs or even better alternative apps as a means to get away from the designs. Malady without remedy never sits well.
As an alternative you need look no further than the return to clean, strong typography and unornamented clarity found to some degree in Android post 4.x and even more so in Microsoft's new designs.
Apple is ransoming the future for the present with these cheap design tricks while their competitors are busy building new design languages for the next decade. Apple's entire UI looks dated now relative to their competition.
Reading this I had a sudden flash why Apple might just be right.
The thing is that modern phones and computers are getting to the point where they can display texture to good effect.
Textures are very pleasant, comforting things to add to the UI of an application. Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
What alternative approach improves on this? I'm honestly curious here.
Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the physical world.
How do people acquire their intuitions of the physical world? By interacting with it. Likewise with computers and software.
Better to to develop appropriate intuitions based on the thing you're actually using than to rely on increasingly outdated analogs.
I would like an alternative approach but I don't see anything in the links here that "just works" in the way that the fake-leather thing in OP just works. I also see stuff that seems nice-looking but not-functional.
If this sounds harsh or dogmatic, sorry.
But any image that falls off the edge of screen is broken as a far as usability-at-glance goes no matter esthetically pleasing it might be. Looked at from the point of view of static beauty, the Metro stuff is indeed far superior. Looked in terms of an app I would use, I see massively wasted real estate and texture that distracts from the task rather than helping it.
I'm just a programmer pretending to be a designer but who really is creating a Facebook client.
It feels like Metro copied really-world typography that works well for situations where people simply read/consume information but I can't see it translating to interaction.
The last quote in your links: "Fantasy User Interfaces in movies are your best friend." Sadly, it seem more Metro is a fantasy user interface. The fantasy user interfaces only exist for the one-way communication from the show-writer to the viewer. They work great for that. Total fail for something people use on an ongoing basis.
I know few will care about this rant but I am honestly a discouraged at how much of failure as an interactive interface Metro seems to be.
I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open going forward.
I think the article concludes with a pointer to the metro or whatever its called today UI that Microsoft introduced with Windows 8. That is the remedy you are looking for.
Hmmm. What the author fails to acknowledge is the 'bakelite' phenomenon. When bakelite was first used all those years back, it's sales tanked because it looked like the proto-plastic it was. It wasn't until it was made to look like wood that it became accepted, then the consumers of it were taken on a journey back to the original aesthetic. Put simply, sometimes people aren't ready to accept the intrinsic properties of a thing unless they've been led along a path towards it.
These skeumorphism-is-bad posts are pretty familiar with people who follow Apple blogs, it's been the darling of amateur design critics for years now.
The counter argument is pretty simple, even though it looks hideous and adds nothing to the app's functionality, it is supposed to encourage feelings of familiarity with people who wouldn't necessarily use an computer application. Whether it does or doesn't is up for debate, and I've never seen any stats to support either position.
I think the author is dead wrong. I think most people very much enjoy the patterns and, also, that Apple primarily deals with hardware while letting the developer community take care of the software. If you don't like how calendar looks, go write your own or get one from the app store. That's the whole point.
I always laugh at the amount of ignorance when people talk about this topic.
Apple has been doing this since the very beginning of OSX. Aqua, Pinstripes, Brushed Metal etc. And the popularity of OSX is one of the core reasons for Apple's success. The fact is that Apple does do consumer research and would have changed approach if there was evidence it was hurting them.
Andy Mangold's appropriately-titled blog post "Skeuomorphism: The Opiate of the People" addresses the role of skeumorphism quite clearly, I think:
"Some people believe that skeuomorphism makes an interface easier to use, or more intuitive for the user, and I simply don’t buy that. But what hadn’t occurred to me is that it doesn’t matter if it actually does make it easier to use, all that matters is that it makes the average person think it’s easier to use. In reality, a user must take time to learn any interface, whether clad in faux leather or not. The skeuomorphism in iOS plainly tricks people that might otherwise walk away…" [http://andymangold.com/skeuomorphism-the-opiate-of-the-peopl...]
People often quote the goal of effective skeumorphism as leveraging existing patterns (which just happen to be physical, not digital), to make an interface more familiar and easier to use. I think, if this is true, then it's rarely executed on that level. But if a user is more willing, more patient, and more inclined to go through a learning curve because of skeumorphism, I'd argue this is effective design.
Sometimes anti-skeumorphism sentiment sounds really similar to the "aesthetics don't matter as long as it works!" rallying cry. If aesthetics make it more pleasant to use a product, then the aesthetics serve a purpose.
(Edit—regarding honesty and emotive interfaces in digital design, here's another well-articulated perspective on the issue: http://maxcho.com/2011/10/dont-send-love-letters-in-helvetic...)