Skeumorphism and storytelling

Tldr; argues that skeumorphism has its place, when used appropriately to immediately get across the purpose of the app.<p>That also accurately describes the importance of visual design overall, not just this one particular flavor of realistic-looking interfaces. It's what helps a product instantly "impute" what it's for, for those that read the Jobs book.<p>Straightforward UX will only get you so far and if functionality were the only thing people cared about, we'd all be driving Volvos and Ferrari would be out of business.

I made this point previously on HN about Apple's Find My Friends app: in light of how ridiculous the leather stitching looks, the friendliness of the UI distracts users from the reality of how intrusive the app's functionality can be.<p>Imagine Find My Friends with a standard grey/black iOS UI. User reactions would quickly go from 'this is neat' to 'this is scary.'

Usability is not a constant property. When we first see an interface we evaluate its perceived usability. Research has shown that this is mostly a function of its visual appeal. I think skeumorphic design has a high perceived usability. Someone who has never seen an iPad would recognize the iBook. But the same is not true for kindle. It does not look like a book.<p>After using the interface over time, our perception of usability changes. I suspect, overtime skeumorphic design will lose its appeal overtime because many constraints will be forced on the user artificially. Flipping pages on the iBook may seem more work than just tapping.

Skeumorphism has its place, for sure. The drawing apps (particularly Paper) are excellent examples: they dictate their function in an elegant and subtle way. Paper is clearly for jotting down and collecting your thoughts. Brushes is clearly for more intense, focused illustration/mind mapping sessions.<p>The example that wanders into dangerous territory, though, is the desktop version of Photo Booth. While all the others I've mentioned serve to suggest what the app <i>can do</i>, Photo Booth's gaudy curtains-and-wood-paneling design dictates what you <i>should do</i>. It limits the range of the software's potential uses; the old grey photo booth was clearly a program for taking photos of anything you wanted with your front camera, while the new version is more apparently only for dicking around with your friends and taking silly distorted pictures. The skeumorphism of Paper serves to make the app more intuitive; the skeumorphism of Photo Booth serves only to constrict.

Skeumorphism design may help me to adapt to the piece of software the first couple of seconds. However, after that it distracts me the rest of the time I am using the software.

Remember the Chris Prillo's dad tries Windows 8 video from a month ago where he struggled to use it? He had a follow up video where he tried the beta of Mountain Lion and said "well, I know these apps because they're the same on my iphone, so that is kinda like cheating [because he was being tested on how easy it is to use the os]". That is the reason why Apple is doing it.

Skeumorphism is what makes the iPad the iPad. Instead of being a computer with its own paradigm that you have to <i>learn</i>, the iPad is a blank slate that changes itself with each app. And by using Skeumorphism, Apple makes it immediately obvious to people-- many of whom may have never used a computer before-- what the functionality of the device is. It allows the device to become the apps, and it makes it easy to use.