> This isn't about skeuomorphic design or lack thereof
"They don't look like buttons" is a complaint about lack of skeumorphism. An extremely common and accepted case, but a case nonetheless.
Metro-like buttons do not look like 'real' buttons and, embedded in non-Metro content, don't look clickable. In a properly designed Metro UI they are unmistakably clickable and work fine in touch devices. Metro is still relatively new and takes some getting used to in the wild. But hey, there was a time when people complained about the lack of underlining in the text of button-looking clickable elements in web pages.
You are right also, in Metro a colored rectangle with a symbol and/or a short word is meant to be clickable. Non-clickable elements should look clearly different in content or in styling. That is fine.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Metro as 'better' or 'worse', only emphasize the fact that it's different.
I'd argue it's not so much about skeuomorphism as much as it is about affordance. They don't look like you can push them and interact with them, which means you need to be much more careful about the context and design language you use them in.
"They don't look like buttons" is a complaint about lack of skeumorphism. An extremely common and accepted case, but a case nonetheless.
Metro-like buttons do not look like 'real' buttons and, embedded in non-Metro content, don't look clickable. In a properly designed Metro UI they are unmistakably clickable and work fine in touch devices. Metro is still relatively new and takes some getting used to in the wild. But hey, there was a time when people complained about the lack of underlining in the text of button-looking clickable elements in web pages.
You are right also, in Metro a colored rectangle with a symbol and/or a short word is meant to be clickable. Non-clickable elements should look clearly different in content or in styling. That is fine.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Metro as 'better' or 'worse', only emphasize the fact that it's different.