No but they do hate bad/ugly skeuomorphism. And there's plenty of that in Apple's software these days.
Ah… now there's the real argument.
Originally Posted by nikon133
You are aware that bold statement like this also needs a citation, right?
Only for people who don't know what skeuomorphism is in the first place, and therefore they don't need to be commenting on it.
I sincerely think that no intelligent person should really formulate their posts in that way, ever.
Citation needed.
But show me desktop that actually looks like quality wood table with everything else looking like tools and objects sitting on that table; opened and closed envelopes for emails, envelope knife for reading them maybe? Cassette player for my music library? Photo album for my galleries? There is a big chance I'd actually hate that.
There's more than a chance I'd hate that, too! But there it is: you've found the real argument. People aren't opposed to the concept of a Desktop analogy; they're opposed to making it too analogous. Or analogous in the wrong way. Calendar, for example, could still very well look look like a standard desktop (physical) calendar, with demarcating lines appearing as though they're drawn in pen and with a subtle tear mark across the top, and people would love it.
That's why those who are opposed to the skeuomorphism in Apple products are only opposed to the overt nature of the skeuomorph. In some cases (certainly not all), the app(lication)'s design oversteps its bounds and becomes the focal point, rather than stepping out of the way of the content.
Only for people who don't know what skeuomorphism is in the first place, and therefore they don't need to be commenting on it.
This might be true. My understanding is that skeumorphism is recreation of look/feel/hear rather than recreation of functionality. Thus computer desktop does not really recreate table top in skeumorphic terms. Icons? Most of them, on my desktop at least, are too "symbolised", simplified to be considered recreations of real documents, folders etc.
But I might be wrong here.
Citation needed. ;)
Ah, but not, my dear sir
Since I started my statement with "I think...", I'm obviously just stating my personal opinion. I'd say that personal opinion does not require citation, it is what it is - an opinion.
You, however, started your post with "Anyone who has ever enjoyed any aspect of computing interfaces...". This doesn't roll as personal opinion but as something you know for fact. And I'd humbly like to learn that fact. Maybe you personally met every person who ever enjoyed any aspect of computing interfaces"? Thus citation.
There's more than a chance I'd hate that, too! But there it is: you've found the real argument. People aren't opposed to the concept of a Desktop analogy; they're opposed to making it too analogous. Or analogous in the wrong way. Calendar, for example, could still very well look look like a standard desktop (physical) calendar, with demarcating lines appearing as though they're drawn in pen and with a subtle tear mark across the top, and people would love it.
That's why those who are opposed to the skeuomorphism in Apple products are only opposed to the overt nature of the skeuomorph. In some cases (certainly not all), the app(lication)'s design oversteps its bounds and becomes the focal point, rather than stepping out of the way of the content.
My understanding of concept is that it doesn't really apply everywhere people think it does. One of definitions around the web is "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material". So take any word-processing application, for example. They all by default recreate white paper sheet. But it is not with little or no purpose - it has purpose of re-creating functionality of written/typewritten document, being digital document itself, and as such it is defined by standards we use in handling, printing documents. Thus skeumorphism would be giving that on-screen document a texture of papyrus, canvas, clay tablet... but not making it plain white field for text input, which is matter of functionality.
Depends what you mean by "software designer". Just like with hardware, you do have to interact with the software. He may not be a coder but he can certainly say, do we need all these buttons? Is there a better way to get to this? It has to be intuitive.
If you have to say something like "Depends what you mean by software designer", then you totally don't get it. Someone who ponders buttons is absolutely NOT a software designer.
Comments
Originally Posted by Rogifan
No but they do hate bad/ugly skeuomorphism. And there's plenty of that in Apple's software these days.
Ah… now there's the real argument.
Originally Posted by nikon133
You are aware that bold statement like this also needs a citation, right?
Only for people who don't know what skeuomorphism is in the first place, and therefore they don't need to be commenting on it.
I sincerely think that no intelligent person should really formulate their posts in that way, ever.
Citation needed.
But show me desktop that actually looks like quality wood table with everything else looking like tools and objects sitting on that table; opened and closed envelopes for emails, envelope knife for reading them maybe? Cassette player for my music library? Photo album for my galleries? There is a big chance I'd actually hate that.
There's more than a chance I'd hate that, too! But there it is: you've found the real argument. People aren't opposed to the concept of a Desktop analogy; they're opposed to making it too analogous. Or analogous in the wrong way. Calendar, for example, could still very well look look like a standard desktop (physical) calendar, with demarcating lines appearing as though they're drawn in pen and with a subtle tear mark across the top, and people would love it.
That's why those who are opposed to the skeuomorphism in Apple products are only opposed to the overt nature of the skeuomorph. In some cases (certainly not all), the app(lication)'s design oversteps its bounds and becomes the focal point, rather than stepping out of the way of the content.
This might be true. My understanding is that skeumorphism is recreation of look/feel/hear rather than recreation of functionality. Thus computer desktop does not really recreate table top in skeumorphic terms. Icons? Most of them, on my desktop at least, are too "symbolised", simplified to be considered recreations of real documents, folders etc.
But I might be wrong here.
Ah, but not, my dear sir
Since I started my statement with "I think...", I'm obviously just stating my personal opinion. I'd say that personal opinion does not require citation, it is what it is - an opinion.
You, however, started your post with "Anyone who has ever enjoyed any aspect of computing interfaces...". This doesn't roll as personal opinion but as something you know for fact. And I'd humbly like to learn that fact. Maybe you personally met every person who ever enjoyed any aspect of computing interfaces"? Thus citation.
My understanding of concept is that it doesn't really apply everywhere people think it does. One of definitions around the web is "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material". So take any word-processing application, for example. They all by default recreate white paper sheet. But it is not with little or no purpose - it has purpose of re-creating functionality of written/typewritten document, being digital document itself, and as such it is defined by standards we use in handling, printing documents. Thus skeumorphism would be giving that on-screen document a texture of papyrus, canvas, clay tablet... but not making it plain white field for text input, which is matter of functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Depends what you mean by "software designer". Just like with hardware, you do have to interact with the software. He may not be a coder but he can certainly say, do we need all these buttons? Is there a better way to get to this? It has to be intuitive.
If you have to say something like "Depends what you mean by software designer", then you totally don't get it. Someone who ponders buttons is absolutely NOT a software designer.
Absolutely agreed.