Flat design weeds out a myriad of built in affordances of our visual system:
- Color to help us more quickly distinguish between things, what the things are, and their roles.
- Borders, to demark edges of active usable elements, communicate roles, encapsulate closely related things.
- Translucence as a way to combine subtle elements into a single form in a way our visual system can quickly interpret.
- Texture as another means of quickly communicating topic separation and indicating roles. Especially useful for areas containing other elements.
- Shading that our native visual system naturally interprets as rich 3D information. For processing separation, function, including the state of dynamic function.
- Smooth motions to draw attention to, and indicate changes of state.
I am NOT suggesting graphical interfaces should:
- Resemble a rainbow Christmas tree of "look-at-me!" ornaments.
- Organize hierarchical information in n-level nested Mondrian boxes.
- Be performatively stylish: overly glassy, shiny, lickable.
- Have unsubtle textures, or painstakingly recreate leather, felt, marble, or (dear baby Zeus) grass.
- Spray shading and shadows onto everything in an attempt to recreate VR on a flat screen.
- Sparkle, blink, bob and weave, and otherwise snow and distract us with motion.
I am suggesting that it is madness not to sparingly use large dimensions of our visual processing system, to communicate visual information.
These extra dimensions not only provide richer information for our visual fovea, but to our peripheral vision. Our brain is constantly processing peripheral vision to create context.
A classic case of form over function.
A classic case of "simple" as in "less design work, trivial brand language consistency", not "simple" as in "easy to discover, understand and use".
(As with the check/radio/button/selector, I cannot process that Apple fell for flat design. Such corporate amnesia. From design leader to lowest common denominator follower.)