This past Wednesday, I did not waste any time in downloading iOS7, Apple’s new mobile operating system, to my iPad and iPhone. Part of the reason why is that I like to always have my devices running the latest software; I just like to keep everything current. The other part of the reason why was everything that I had been reading in the news about iOS7. The expanded capabilities of Siri, the new Control Center, and the ability to open Safari and see what web pages I had open in on my other devices were all tempting and I was excited when I was finally able to try out these new features for myself. The biggest change of all, of course, was the radically redesigned user interface, which marked a strong shift toward “flat design” and a strong shift away from “skeuomorphic design.”
In
an article for TIME Magazine this past June, Lev Grossman defines skeuomorph as
“an element in an object’s design that’s no longer functionally necessary but
has been retained anyway for ornamental purposes.” Grossman cites as an example
of skeuomorphism the design of leather thongs. In ancient times, thongs were
used for holding together tools such as stone axes, but thongs were soon
rendered obsolete. However it would be quite common to still see objects with
twisted-leather thong patterns etched into them just for show.
Although
as Grossman points out we do not see thongs that much anymore, skeuomorphism is
still quite prevalent, particularly in software design. Digital objects do not
have the same constraints as objects in real life, but they are often made to
look like real objects anyway, particularly to help users understand what
purpose the digital object is meant to server. On the Windows operating system,
the recycle bin icon looks just like a recycle bin, and on Mac OS, the trash
bin icon looks just like a trash bin. There is no particular reason why these recycle
bins need to look like recycle bins; they could look like ordinary folders and
they would still be trash bins. There is a legend that Steve Jobs’s private jet
inspired the leather-stitching pattern in Mac OS X’s iCal calendar application,
but who really cares about a design that is glossy and fancy? All that really
matters is that the application works and does everything that it is advertised
to do. Software designers might think that making applications look like real-world
objects might help the consumer, but in reality it does not. Employing
skeuomorphic design can even create false expectations; Grossman points out
that a digital book may look like a book, but you cannot feel the pages or turn
multiple pages at a time or fold corners down or scribble in the margins. Users
do not care much for flashy design, but they do care for honesty, and sometimes
a flat design is all you need to be honest.
One
of the most striking examples today of an anti-skeuomorphic OS is the Windows 8
operating system, which dispenses with the traditional desktop and instead is
designed around brightly colored tiles (although you can access a traditional Windows
desktop by clicking on a particular tile). The heavy criticism that Windows 8
has generated highlights one of the dangers of completely eliminating
skeuomorphism; you should not eliminate it so thoroughly that it user-friendliness
is compromised. With Apple’s iOS7, skeuomorphism has been significantly
reduced, but users familiar with iOS will still know how to navigate the
operating system and how to launch into and exit from apps. Apple has not
completely removed skeuomorphism with iOS7, and that might just be alright. As
Grossman points out, “It’s possible for software to be too flat. Skeuomorphism
isn’t inherently bad when used responsibly. There’s nothing wrong with being
user-friendly.”
Since
becoming an Apple mobile device user, I have experienced iOS4, iOS5, iOS6, and
now iOS7. I enjoyed the flashy design of the native apps in the first three,
but after installing iOS7 and reading Grossman’s article I realize that I did
not need such flashy designs. All I really need is a design that is
user-friendly and honest. Even though iOS7 has largely done away with
skeuomorphism, it is still honest and user-friendly, and that is just fine with
me.
You said it yourself: "...users familiar with iOS will still know how to navigate the operating system and how to launch into and exit from apps."
ReplyDeleteBut what about those who aren't familiar? Take a smartphone, and remove the back button. A user will ask how to go back. Take a video player and remove the play/pause button, people will be confused on how to start and stop the video. Take an application and remove the floppy drive icon that is used for "save", people will ask how to save.
Take a phone that is widely considered to have a easy to use UI, and, to quote many online media sources, have a unicorn throw up on it. It may seem insignificant, but as I started, you said it yourself that people who are familiar will understand the UI. But if someone doesn't, where do they start?
Instead of seeing a sliding button, they simply see a line of text that says "swipe to unlock". The button, anyone from age 2 to age 102 will get. If you look at the iOS 6 stock apps and the iOS 7 stock apps (http://applenapps.com/feature/ios-7-vs-ios-6-comparing-the-home-screen-stock-app-icons) you'll realize that many of them just removed the gloss on the app icon. It's still skeuomorphic, it's just not shiny.
Anti-skeuomorphic design does not mean that a phone icon has gloss and a drop shadow removed, it means you remove the phone. The lockscreen example I used is a perfect example of that.
While I keep reiterating the same statement, the key is: Design is not something that's right or wrong. It's something that provides a user access to the full gamut of an item's functionality while still being aesthetically pleasing. iOS 7 to do something that was asthetically pleasing, removed the gloss, and heavily changed the contrast. People will love it, people will hate it. But it doesn't make it right and everything else wrong. Windows 8 is in the same boat. But they did a lot more of a anti-skeuomorphic design then Apple, and as you pointed out, had a lot of backlash over it.
Grossman's article shouldn't be the reason for you're opinion of the a design. The designer wants you to like their design. If you don't like it, you don't. If Grossman says skeuomorphism is bad, it doesn't mean you need to carry the torch of his view, especially when you said you liked the design before hand.
//Stops writing since no real end point was designated for the comments