
Skeuomorphism: The Opiate of the People - pchristensen
http://www.andymangold.com/skeuomorphism-the-opiate-of-the-people/
======
flyosity
There's a difference between "looking like something I'm familiar with" and
"working like something I'm familiar with". The problem with bad skeuomorphic
design is when it _looks_ familiar but doesn't _act_ like the thing it's
mimicking.

A good example of this was brought up by Josh Clark in his talk at Swipe
Conference a few months back: the Address Book app on the iPad. The main
interface is an open book, but you can't swipe through pages like you're
actually reading an address book. In fact, if you swipe in the middle of the
right page, you're going to swipe on a contact's field and then a delete
button will pop up! Trying to swipe from page to page (like you would if this
design mimicked the real object's affordances) could actually be a destructive
action.

The design of Classics for iPhone and, later on, iBooks is skeuomorphic and
resembles an open book, but you can (mostly) treat the app as if you would a
book using similar actions. This is an example of skeuomorphic design that
actually works. It looks _and works_ like the real world thing it's emulating.

Bad skeuomorphic design simply _looks_ familiar, but the user experience takes
a wrong turn as soon as you start to use it like you would use the real thing.
Bad skeuomorphic design can actually deeply harm the user experience because
it builds up a false trust with users.

However, using real-world textures, patterns and materials like leather,
tartan, glass and aluminum in your app interfaces just to spice it up a bit
does not necessarily mean you're designing in a skeuomorphic manner if these
items are used purely in an ornamental sense. An app like Find My Friends that
looks like a baseball glove obviously isn't made to replicate a baseball
glove's functionality, it simply uses some stitched leather textures from the
real world. This doesn't mean it's a skeuomorphic interface but it does, in
this case, mean it's ugly. The secret is to use realistic patterns and
textures sparingly, not drop them from the sky all over the screen.

~~~
lubutu
I always found iBooks' attempt at skeuomorphism really off-putting, at least
on the iPad: the size of each page will change depending on whether you hold
it portrait or landscape, and so the number of pages, and on which pages text
can be found, will all change. I actually stopped using it shortly after
downloading it for exactly this reason. It promises to behave like a book, but
falls far short. No pages at all would have been preferable.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I want something between Kindle and iBooks. Kindle is too flat and lacks any
personality. iBooks gives the personality, but the skeuomorphic behavior is
off just enough to be disconcerting (like a robot that is almost, but not
quite, human).

------
joebadmo
_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, convinced that they
can’t learn something new, into putting in the time required to get acclimated
to a new interface.

For every one designer pointing out flawed and unnecessary ornamentation in
iOS, one hundred non-designers, normal people, are tricked into thinking they
understand something new._

But this is violated as soon as that person walks up and tries it and the
thing doesn't work the way they thought they knew it would.

Skeuomorphism _can_ help when used properly. If something looks like a button,
I know by metaphor that pushing it will do something. What's really tragic
about Apple's recent use of skeuomorphism is that it often doesn't make any
metaphorical sense, and is also horribly ugly.

But I think we should move on. The people that need skeuomorphism as a crutch
are dying out. The new generations are growing up with digital interfaces.
We're artifically limiting what we can do by simulating physical things.

Here's my first attempt at thinking about what the implications of wholly
embracing the digital medium are:
[http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-
kind-o...](http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/9325300749/a-different-kind-of-gui)

~~~
jodrellblank
_But this is violated as soon as that person walks up and tries it and the
thing doesn't work the way they thought they knew it would._

Point is, that happens after they've paid for it.

~~~
cgislason
I wonder how these points relate to the high satisfaction rate of iPhone
users. Or maybe there's no relation at all?

~~~
rsynnott
Probably not much. Most of the skeuomorphism is actually relatively new.

------
WiseWeasel
How does the leather skin on "Find My Friends" trick people into assuming
familiarity? It's an application without a physical analog, other than
shouting your friends' names really loudly or wearing a weird hat or bright
shirt.

I think someone with a high position in Apple's iOS app software department
just really likes that leather look, and people are reading way too much into
this. There are cases where the skeuomorphism is appropriate, such as the
striped yellow notepad or the wooden bookshelf in iBooks, but Apple has
clearly extended the use of these themes beyond where they make any kind of
logical sense, making them simple arbitrary aesthetic choices.

~~~
chrisdroukas
Could it be a function of 'comfort in familiarity' in what's otherwise a
jarringly personal app?

~~~
WiseWeasel
To me, it just looks weird, with interface elements such as buttons and text
fields sculpted in leather. I cannot see how it would make me feel
familiarity.

~~~
chrisdroukas
Maybe comfort is a better word for it.

It would be interesting to see an A/B test of the leather UI and a standard
iOS UI — something that looks exactly like Google Maps with Latitude on top of
it, for instance.

I'd be willing to bet that the leather UI is better received by users. The app
is divulging a core aspect of privacy but it certainly manages to look
friendly doing it.

------
jongold
The biggest problem is the use of metaphors that won't make sense in a couple
of years. When we don't have printed magazines and newspapers we'll be stuck
with the legacy of dated apps and metaphors.

Indulging in objectively bad design in the short term to appease technically
inexperienced users isn't a solution, it's putting a band aid on the infected
wound of inconsiderate UI designer.

For more on that line, I wrote about it a few days ago
[http://designedbygold.com/2011/10/the-metaphors-breaking-
the...](http://designedbygold.com/2011/10/the-metaphors-breaking-the-future/)

~~~
alttag
Are you talking about "Save to disk" icons that include pictures of floppy
disks? =:)

~~~
jongold
Absolutely - great example.

------
pchristensen
Useful related reading:

<http://www.alistapart.com/articles/indefenseofeyecandy>

Emotional Design by Don Norman - [http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Design-
Everyday-Things-ebook...](http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Design-Everyday-
Things-ebook/dp/B005GKIYD4)

(summary of above - <http://www.curledup.com/emotionl.htm> )

------
dylanrw
I think it has it's place but I mainly use it as a way to inform the user's
concept of an app or a portion of an app.

Example: At WePay we don't use skeuomorphism in the UI except for receipts and
tickets, these are parts of the app that have a real world analog and we want
to stress that these are the valuable results of a transaction that should be
held on to.

In the end you have varying degrees of metaphor in UI design, this is just one
of them...

------
sherwin
Related: <http://madebymany.com/blog/apples-aesthetic-dichotomy>. This writer
brings up an excellent question: for whatever reason Apple seems to think
having skeuomorphic interfaces is a good idea.... so why isn't this reflected
in the hardware itself? Why is the macbook/ipad not designed to look like a
notepad or briefcase?

~~~
cageface
This exactly. On the outside Apple's devices are sleek and futuristic and
often boldly unconventional. For some reason they seem to lose their nerve
when it comes to software.

------
saturdaysaint
This is blowing one element of design way out of proportion. I'm not a huge
fan of brown leather, but to me, iCal is much easier to look at and
functionally clear than Google Calendar, and part of this has to do with the
use of texture.

When I open iCal (in the cloud or desktop), my focus rests naturally on the
actual calendar because the texturing puts all the settings in the background.
I like that the calendar itself is elegantly centered on the screen. I like
that it has only settings I'm likely to use and that menus I use less the
calendar selection column) are completely out of the way.

I don't have any problem using Google Calendar, but it's flatness annoys me.
The calendar is lumped into the bottom of the screen, which is kind of an odd
de-emphasis of the most used element of the app. The banner and many controls
I don't use all the time have the same dark hue as the current week. Search is
disproportionately (for my calendar usage, anyway) prioritized in terms of
screen space. The whole left column (with the garish "create" button and a
mini calendar) is basically useless.

Yeah, Apple needs to go easy on the leather (surely _something_ could be more
consonant with that silk texture), but ultimately Google has a lot more to
learn from iCal than vice versa. And I think iCal actually shows, albeit
imperfectly, that texture does have its place.

------
jcfrei
interesting read, but I would have appreciated a few more examples of
skeuomorphism other than the leathery ical. frankly I ask myself whether it's
possible to design a GUI without any skeuomorphisms at all. Wouldnt we be
unable to use it? aren't we only able to interact with computers and with the
world in general because we remember certain visual clues on what the expected
behaviour is (eg. red & green traffic lights, light switches, door knobs...)?

~~~
fleitz
It would be pretty much impossible. People are symbol processors, if they
don't understand any of the symbols then they can't learn it. This is probably
why car analogies are prevalent in the tech field, and higher dimensional
spaces are difficult to understand.

It's extremely difficult to understand what Mayan tablets mean because we
don't understand the symbols. This is why things like a rosetta stone are so
important, because they give us clues as to what symbols mean.

Every symbol is evaluated in the context of the individual.

Designing an interface with no 'skeuomorphisms' would be extremely difficult,
it's arguable that roman letters themselves are 'skeuomorphisms' of the
requirements originally for stone tablets. An interface with no skeuomorphisms
is like a person who no one can relate to. It's the difference between
learning a new language and learning a new word in a language you already
know.

"Good" designers have their own symbology so designers who are trained find
other "haute" design easy to use. Since most people aren't "haute" designers
it becomes difficult to relate to and use their designs.

There's a great article out there about a hotel that installed really well
designed light switches that no one could use but everyone loved once they
figured out how to use them. "Haute" design is like C4, it has huge activation
potential to overcome but once you overcome it, it's explosively powerful.
However, the activation potential is a hinderance to adoption.

~~~
mannicken
"People are symbol processors"

No.

"Since most people aren't "haute" designers it becomes difficult to relate to
and use their designs."

No.

It's easy to judge how realistic or beautiful a face is, but much harder to
draw it. Similar concept with design.

I think you're making a fundamental assumption that design/drawing/visual
disciplines are symbol-based, when they are not symbol-based.

I highly suggest reading "Drawing on the right side of the brain". I've
studied art, and in every drawing class something along the lines of "No,
symbols are bad, boo egyptian eyes, switch to the right side of the brain" was
said at some point.

------
saturdaysaint
If Safari had prominent wood grain I'd care, but the fact that this kind of
design is isolated to a few of Apple's more obscure, lesser used apps makes
this whole thing a non-issue.

I will say that I prefer iBook to the reading app I actually use (Kindle,
since I'm in Amazon's ecosystem) - I find the subtle border and gradients on
the edges (and a handsome color scheme) more pleasing to the eye than the flat
"text on a plain background" that I see in the Kindle and Google Books apps.
Done right, texture and shadow can subtly draw the eye to the most relevant
section of a screen. To me, the flat interfaces that the anti-skeutomorph
people seem to admire are unnatural and decidedly uneasy on the eyes.

------
fuzionmonkey
Apple's skeuomorphic design for iCal is bad. iCal has been made to look like a
real calendar, but in reality it isn't used like a real one at all.

If iCal worked like a real calendar, skeuomorphism would have value, but in
its current form, it's just an ugly skin. It doesn't actually show users how
to use it.

Read about it here: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-
os-x-10-7.a...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-
os-x-10-7.ars/5)

~~~
tripzilch
You're confusing _affordance_ with skeumorphism.

Skeuomorphs are non-functional, by definition.

~~~
dpark
By who's definition? Some common skeuomorphs are shutter sounds on cameras
without physical shutters and page turn animations in e-books. These are both
skeuomorphs because they reference functionality in an earlier object, and
they are largely ornamental. However, these are also functional. The shutter
sound tells the user that the picture has been taken, and the page turn
animation provides a visual transition between two pages. Both of these could
be accomplished other ways (such as a chime and cut-through-white
respectively), but that doesn't make them entirely non-functional.

------
mambodog
This is what happens when high design meets the real world. As much as it
pains designers to realise, most people have _shitty taste_ and as such, there
are times when compromises must be made to get them on board. As Reichenstein
notes, for most consumer-targeted UIs, users won't even give your _serious
design_ a chance if it lacks a bit of eye candy. You'll just have to find some
kind of balance.

~~~
wladimir
You make it sound like your particular taste is superior. But minimalism is
not the end-it-all. It's one of many possible styles.

What does it even mean that "most people have shitty taste"? I guess it's easy
to agree with that on an emotional level because taste is so varied. There is
always bound to be a large number of people that you don't agree with in
taste. That is completely subjective though, those people will probably find
your taste shitty.

------
grandalf
This is very entertaining and revealing. It helps me realize why I have been
unable to get myself to use any of those apps with wood grain, leather, etc.

I'd argue that designers should stop overreacting to this though b/c few are
innocent of using typefaces in a nostalgic way from time to time.

------
barefoot
I ended up clicking over to the (very interesting) wikipedia definition.

Does anyone know what the purpose of the Maple syrup handle is?

~~~
michael_dorfman
It doesn't have a purpose; that's the point. It's modelled after the handle on
larger jugs, which permit the user to hold the jug-- but that makes sense on a
gallon jug, and not on a half-pint jug.

------
beteg
Shaquille O'Neal: the Michael Jordan of Basketball.

------
gringomorcego
I think it just gives people the confidence to play around with it. And that's
what really matters. As longs as people are willing to play with it and aren't
scared away, the design is pretty darn good.

