Hacker News Reader

Comment by potatolicious | Hacker News Reader

Because it can afford to be now.

There was a time where most people didn't know how to operate a computer. We had to pull all the stops out to make computer use possible or easier for them - skeumorphism is one of the things that came out of that. We hoped that by emulating real-world objects, both in detail (see: iCal) or in more abstract terms (see: "3D" buttons).

Whether or not this ever really helped usability is a matter of debate.

In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now. The general UI elements and their rules - links, buttons, sliders, etc, are all known to just about everyone. At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability.

That and it's just the style. Why are cars today more beveled and sharper-edged than cars of the 90s? Whatever happened to the big hair of the 80s?

View on HN

I'm 47, been using computers since high school, and find flat a disaster. I'm in Firefox right now. The forward/back buttons take slightly different shades of gray depending on whether they are currently disabled or not. I endlessly find myself speculatively clicking on them to see if they work or not. Sure, somebody will respond that the difference is clear to them, but that does not obviate my data point.

Further, I often find myself completely unable to discern which tab is for the page I'm on. If you use chrome, the tab in the foreground lays on top of the other tabs, so it is clearer. Firefox - a slightly different shade again.

Are there more tabs than are visible? Again, this is denoted by a slightly different shade of gray. This probably works great for 20 somethings with great eyesight. It is very problematic if your eyesight or monitor is not so good, if your windows color settings are not the norm, and so on.

As for cars, they are shaped this way because of wind tunnel data. Data and utility matter, design is not just all about fashion.

It seems to me that your complaint is not so much with flat design as it is with insufficient contrast between active/selected items and other items. That can be a problem with non-flat UIs as well.

In any case, your point about the 20-somethings is a good one. Large portions of the web are usable only with difficulty for people with poor eyesight, or lack of experience with high-stimulation environments, or attention problems, or sensory-processing issues, etc. We see articles about making things usable by blind people, but very little about the much larger population of people who can't handle low contrast, overly busy pages, or tiny text.

I don't quite get why you are complaining about Firefox. I'm on the Aurora series, and using the default theme; the buttons are colourful when enabled, and grey when disabled. No matter what series you're on, Firefox has a plethora of themes to pick from, including some that give it Chrome-like tabs.

This is the same story I've heard everywhere, but have there actually been usability studies to show that flat buttons are somehow more user-friendly than 3D buttons?

It seems like most people's gripes are with the fact that skeuomorphism supposedly led to designs like Apple's Podcast and Find My Friends apps. I'd argue, though, that those app designs didn't suck because of skeuomorphism; they sucked because they were overdone to the point of not relating to reality at all anymore. No one uses tape decks anymore, so clearly that was a paradigm that fell flat completely, and Find My Friends, instead of going for a radar look or something similar, decided to go for an overly-puffy address book-type thing that just looked awful and cluttered.

My problem is now that no button is safe without being criticized for looking clickable, or in other words, exactly like every other div and text field on the page.

I don't see an argument that flat is more user-friendly - just that it's not less user-friendly for people who are familiar with GUIs, and so now we (as UI designers/programmers) can use them without actual drops in usability.

I agree with "because it can afford to be now," but in a different sense. It's fashionable to be fat when food is scarce, and thin when food is abundant. It's fashionable to be pale-skinned when the lower-class works outdoors, and tanned when they work in offices. And it's fashionable to be shiny and realistic when it's a hard effect to implement, and flat when shiny realism is one library-call away.

> At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability.

Do you have any data to back up your opinion? My anecdotal experience with unsophisticated users is that Google's new flat design has been a usability disaster. People who had been capable users of the old gmail design had difficulty finding the same functionality in the new design.

There's a strong tendency for people who live and breath technology to think that it is "intuitive" for everyone. It's not, and such an attitude merely reflects a lack of empathy for people who don't find computer use natural and easy.

Yes, I agree with this. Google touts that they 'dogfood' their designs. Well, have you been on campus? It's like the Valley of Clones. I have no doubt a sea of 20 something, somewhat bright people find flat gmail and the like very usable. 60, glasses, and can't tell if a button press worked or not because there is no visible detent and such? Not so much.

I'm a sophisticated user who has loads of trouble using the new Google Maps app. It's a usability car crash.

>In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now. The general UI elements and their rules - links, buttons, sliders, etc, are all known to just about everyone. At this point since we've trained everyone, we get to drop some of the frills around the UI without suffering a substantial drop in usability.

Chiming in as well with, this isn't exactly true. Just the other day in a DMV I watched a woman really struggle with a touch screen because she didn't realize that two of the "flat" buttons, were options she could click, she thought they were just information.

I'm a big fan of the flat look, but I do see how it can be confusing for some people.

> In any case though, basically everyone knows how to use the computer and the web now

Not in the world I inhabit. Tons of people have serious trouble doing things with computers.

I think the flat stuff is ridiculous.

  > That and it's just the style.

I think that's really all there is to it and that's OK.

> Why are cars today more beveled and sharper-edged than cars of the 90s?

I wonder if trends are indicative of our collective mood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com