Skeuomorphism

Hey all. I'm the curator (punch me in the feelings for saying that) of Skeu.it.<p>Thanks for the support!<p>I'm enjoying the debate here and won't get too much into it. For those arguing what is and isn't skeuomorphism, you're missing the point of the showcase.<p>Skeu.it, as specified on the masthead, celebrates arbitrary and gratuitous user interface decisions. Specifically, this means the misappropriation of visual artifacts designed for evoking familiarity in both form and function.<p>So yes, in my joyfully entitled opinion, using a big piece of frosted glass, with paper hanging from a rope, with magic buttons that somehow exist on lined paper, is a foolish design choice. Really, I wouldn't even call it a design choice, I'd say it's more just a collection of photoshop tutorials masquerading as an interface. Unnecessary skeu is the 2012+ version of the House Industries' "Crackhouse" typeface (<a href="http://www.houseind.com/fonts/crackhouse" rel="nofollow">http://www.houseind.com/fonts/crackhouse</a>) appearing on every website and flyer 10 years ago. It's a classic, recognizable typeface...but stare at that for a moment, think back to how it didn't really make sense to announce free puppies or a car wash in deconstructed type, and let the understanding wash over you. Mmm, delicious understanding.<p>I have no hate towards skeu ("skeuomorphism must die" is silly) at all. In fact, I defend it:<p><a href="http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-skeuomorphic-interfaces" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-skeuomorphic...</a> (from last year, a bit outdated)<p>Thanks again, and please send any good candidates my way (@303, @skeuit) for skeu.it!<p><i>Edit: Proper capitalization, the official end of my majuscular laziness.</i>

So skeuomorphism is now anything besides Windows Phone style "pure digital"? Shiny = glass, black texture = leather, blue texture = denim, etc? That's going to be really, really boring.<p>I don't know why texture is such a bad thing. Of course you can overdo it like anything, but personally I prefer Reeder with a light paper-pulp backing texture instead of a plain light peach background.<p>For example, what is so bad about this?<p><a href="http://skeu.it/image/24908403424" rel="nofollow">http://skeu.it/image/24908403424</a><p>It almost feels like people are calling it skeuomorphic so that's how they expect the developer to feel about it. I don't think regular people look at these as real world metaphors, expecting them to function as they do in real life. That feels to me like a theoretical user posed by developers that doesn't actually exist.<p>In reality, people see it for what it is. Design flair. Whether or not it's unnecessary or helps the user with the app is missing the point entirely. Design that's pleasing to the eye shouldn't get in the way and cause problems, but it doesn't have to accelerate your use of the service to be positive overall.<p>Aero Glass is a great example. It gets mixed opinions, but I think we can all agree that it's far better than Luna and IE actually looks pretty great with it. There is no skeuomorphic benefit to having glass everywhere. It's simply design flair. With that in mind, I still prefer it.

My designer friend and I are laughing so hard at this that we're crying.<p>In all seriousness, this is the perfect tool for showing people how skeumorphism can be taken too far. I actually like many of these designs, but the point is that the metaphors don't actually help, and sometimes only add to the confusion. (Denim weather app? Pea coat button loops for on/off switches?)

The audio plugin example is typical because the vast majority of music production software exhibits a great deal of skeuomorphism. I personally don't like this because it increases the cognitive load in trying to figure out an interface, and I don't feel like it helps make things more intuitive than a non-skeuomorphic interface -- rather the opposite, it becomes more confusing.<p>This is one of the reasons I like Ableton Live ( <a href="http://www.ableton.com/suite-8" rel="nofollow">http://www.ableton.com/suite-8</a> ): it has a simple, consistent user interface elements and the entire user interface happens to be vector based. Not only is it easy to navigate and understand, but the fact that it is vector based allows it to have a resolution-independent interface that can be zoomed in/out. Which addresses another problem with music production software: they tend to use tiny fonts and other UI elements which makes it hard to read when used with a high-PPI monitor and/or when the monitor is far enough away from the user (which seems to often be case in many studio setups). And once you've done a highly graphical skeuomorphic interface that uses lots of bitmaps, scaling doesn't always happen smoothly.<p>On the other hand, many people like skeuomorphic interfaces when they've had past experience with actual audio hardware. Reason ( <a href="http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/" rel="nofollow">http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/</a> ) is one such example where the interface is so skeuomorphic that is often considered a hardware simulator. People who have past experience with such hardware often love Reason because they are able to draw upon past experience to understand the interface. I suppose in this case, this is a very appropriate use of skeuomorphism.<p>People like me who don't have experience with such hardware aren't necessarily going to appreciate this, though some people will enjoy it even without past experience with hardware because some people simply enjoy visually appealing graphical interfaces. So it's a tough call which group of people is in the majority and who you want to cater to. Personally I like music/audio software to focus on it's core task of being a music creation tool, and less on being graphically impressive; but that's just me.

I don't understand all the hate for skeuomorphism lately. Who cares if the todo app uses a design that makes it feel like a leather bound paper notebook. The point of design is to make something functional and beautiful. As long as it doesn't actively make the functionality worse, and some people like they way it looks, <i>what is the problem</i>?

See to me, some of these examples aren't skeuomorphic. This for example, I've never seen a leather item in meat-space with aluminum buttons. Or a big platic/glass button.<p><a href="http://skeu.it/post/29492973628/in-space-no-one-can-see-you-skeu" rel="nofollow">http://skeu.it/post/29492973628/in-space-no-one-can-see-you-...</a>

If skeuomorphism didn't have a name, I bet no one would give a shit.

As a designer, I couldn't agree more. Skeuomorphism can be great if done right. Nowadays visual designers (who are wannabee UX folks) think any sexy texture (leather patterns) can increase usability of an app. Even startup founders think the same. They don't realize design is not the shiny new coat of paint, design is how it works. In fact if your users think "it works fine", it means you've done great job. Your objective is not to hear "wow it has sexy design".

Remember when you were 4 or so? And you had a "busy box"? Just a bunch of levers to move, buttons to push, dials to turn?<p>A well-done skeuomorphic interface, I submit, can be a busy box for grownups. What's wrong with having a few things in your life that partake of both "toy" and "tool"?

Evidently built by someone with a skeued sense of humor.

I think the main point being made is that the design shouldn't be distracting unless that is the point of the design. For login forms to be hanging from keys, and paper to be hanging from bolted glass panels is nonsense, and a distraction. Unfortunately what different people find appealing, others find distracting, but that's what usage metrics and testing are for- to help determine what does and what doesn't work.

Skeumorphism is including or retaining historical design elements for now non-functional purposes.<p>The author asserts that Microsoft's Metro design moves away from it, but his screenshot of Metro shows several instances:<p>- a paper shopping bag icon - MSFT stock symbol - icon of analog alarm clock with bells - gear icon for control panel - manilla folder icon for windows explorer<p>And does anyone else cringe at the HTML slipping through on AT&#38;amp;T?<p>The simple fact is that building on previous experience is useful. Anachronistic visual remnants of previous technology can lend familiarity to a new interface, reducing learning curve and increasing acceptance (e.g., rivets on denim jeans).<p>Sometimes designers go even further and purposely introduce even more skeumorphic elements, going for a "retro" feel.<p>Some people like it, some people don't. It isn't always done well, and it isn't always done badly.

I'm going to go against what seems to be the opinion of lots of designers and bloggers these days and say: I actually like skeuomorphism, if it's well executed.<p>EDIT: I'm talking about <i>visuals</i> now. How it affects usability is part of "well executed".

If you're still complaining about this, I'm here to tell you to move on.

Skeu is saccharine, and that's why it sucks. Mouthful of gloss. Yuck.

This reminds me of one of the first biggest lessons I've learned about the web - make it better than reality. Sadly, Jakob Nielsen found this out in 1998 [1] and we still can't get past it.<p>&#62; <i>It is painful to use the Web, so we need to reward users: give them something new and better that they didn't get before.</i><p>[1] <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980308.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980308.html</a>

The anti-skeuomorphism crusade is more distracting than the designs it calls out. If I were a designer and if I had any influence, I'd add some gratuitous skeu-ness to a design just to attempt to calm the skeuphobia sweeping the design world.

LOL "COME ON DOWN THE THE SKEU WAREHOUSE! WE’VE GOT LINEN! WE’VE GOT WOOD!" <a href="http://dribbble.com/shots/662571-Mo-Tab-bars?list=following" rel="nofollow">http://dribbble.com/shots/662571-Mo-Tab-bars?list=following</a>

best line: <i>FUCK USABILITY WE HIRED A 3D MODELER AND WE’RE GOING TO GET OUR MONEY’S WORTH!</i><p><a href="http://skeu.it/post/28492549355/crysonic" rel="nofollow">http://skeu.it/post/28492549355/crysonic</a>

I wonder if skeuomorphic designs will be looked back at and be viewed like we now view the interfaces from the 90s, with huge amounts of bevel and emboss, shadows and gradients.

Real quick go at it:<p><a href="http://jsbin.com/edoyoc/4/" rel="nofollow">http://jsbin.com/edoyoc/4/</a>

This is pretty awesome, but I wish they had called "Skeu You" instead.

Kitsch UI 4tw!

I personally hate recognizing anything. If you think about it, even distinct text characters one next to each other are a skeumorphism from movable type.<p>Obviously the only correct interface is a simple vertical list where hovering over invisible areas of the screen reads you out loud an option and then clicks it. Actually why read it out loud at all, a skeumorphism from interacting with a person.<p>The only correct interface is a blank screen representing state with groups of pixels that turn off and on without any skeumorphism, but simply representing the state the program is in. Like the LED light showing whether your monitor is off or on, but 1280x1024 of them.<p>anything other than that is just art monkey fluff, designers butting into electronics where they don't belong.<p>a good rule of thumb is: if you recognize what's going on instead of having to decode it, you are dealing with bullshit overpriced overdesigned fluff.

Updated title no longer matches the content of skeu.it, which displays extreme skeu, not just skeu in general or quintessential examples of skeu.<p>Also, skeu.it is really about textures and fail skeu, not actual skeumorphism, which is about retaining obsolete details from a previous form, not just pleasing textured imagery.