Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

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.

(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...)

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.

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.

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.

He hates that the skeumorphic things are patronizing, but, there you are, in a word, the very nature of Apple: patronizing.

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.

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.

Well, Microsoft went with the bauhaus design with Metro, and everyone is mocking them for it.

Honestly, I really don't mind. It's entertaining.

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.