
Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011) - jaybol
http://madebymany.com/blog/apples-aesthetic-dichotomy
======
celadon
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...](http://andymangold.com/skeuomorphism-the-opiate-of-the-people/)]

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...](http://maxcho.com/2011/10/dont-send-love-letters-in-helvetica/))

------
laibert
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.

~~~
barista
Besides people have proved that they like Apple's approach to design. Whatever
the philosophy is, if it has succeeded in the marketplace isn't it superior?

~~~
terryven
If we're judging by success in the marketplace then surely Windows XP is the
most loved design on earth, right?

------
aufreak3
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.

------
kemiller
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.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Nokia's phones show some signs of whimsy. I think you are right about the
severity of all tech design, but I'm not convinced hardware can't be
whimsical.

~~~
kemiller
Oh, I'm not either. But you'll note that Nokia runs Windows and Symbian, which
are pretty much both all-business. They also carry a lot more models, which
broadens the scope for the hardware.

~~~
barista
What makes you think Windows is all business? In fact it's the most social
phone out there.

~~~
kemiller
UI-wise. "Authentically digital" -- lots of rectangles and inorganic colors,
no hint of skeuomorphism.

------
LaGrange
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.

~~~
jarek
> 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.

Not strictly - Rams didn't DJ at the radio station, but Apple is in charge of
both the hardware and the software.

------
rys
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.

~~~
joe_the_user
Yes.

Reading this I had a sudden flash why Apple might just be right.

The thing is that modern phones and computers are getting to the point where
they can display texture to good effect. Textures are very pleasant,
comforting things to add to the UI of an application. Yet what other way is
there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical
materials? Images of physical materials leverages our intuitions of the
physical world.

What alternative approach improves on this? I'm honestly curious here.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Here's some analysis of Metro's alternative approach.

<http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487>

<http://www.riagenic.com/archives/493>

<http://www.riagenic.com/archives/526>

~~~
joe_the_user
I would like an alternative approach but I don't see anything in the links
here that "just works" in the way that the fake-leather thing in OP just
works. I also see stuff that seems nice-looking but not-functional.

If this sounds harsh or dogmatic, sorry.

But any image that falls off the edge of screen is broken as a far as
usability-at-glance goes no matter esthetically pleasing it might be. Looked
at from the point of view of static beauty, the Metro stuff is indeed far
superior. Looked in terms of an app I would use, I see massively wasted real
estate and texture that distracts from the task rather than helping it.

I'm just a programmer pretending to be a designer but who really is creating a
Facebook client.

It feels like Metro copied really-world typography that works well for
situations where people simply read/consume information but I can't see it
translating to interaction.

The last quote in your links: " _Fantasy User Interfaces in movies are your
best friend._ " Sadly, it seem more Metro is a fantasy user interface. The
fantasy user interfaces only exist for the one-way communication from the
show-writer to the viewer. They work great for that. Total fail for something
people use on an ongoing basis.

I know few will care about this rant but I am honestly a discouraged at how
much of failure as an interactive interface Metro seems to be.

I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open going forward.

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

------
andy_herbert
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.

------
benhoskins
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.

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

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

~~~
zacbrown
I think the author is dead wrong. I think most people very much enjoy the
patterns and, also, that Apple primarily deals with hardware while letting the
developer community take care of the software. If you don't like how calendar
looks, go write your own or get one from the app store. That's the whole
point.

------
taligent
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.

~~~
bsimpson
In fairness, Aqua matched the original iMac and blue/white G3 tower. Brushed
Metal matched the PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G5.

The author's point is that the hardware design team's aesthetic is now
clashing with the software team's.

