Link to Flat design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_design It was indeed first introduced by Microsoft with the name Metro Design.
Microsoft is moving away from the notorious Flat UI to Fluent Design: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/build-2017-micro...
It will. Designers will come up with a new thing pretty quickly. In that respect I guess they are probably no different than developers. Nobody likes to end the year with "yeah I just maintained this piece of code last year", instead it has to be "yeah the code the last team wrote was crap, so we tore it all out, replaced with a fancier later framework, added some features on top, etc".
Presumably people in charge of design at these big companies get paid decently, so there is some internal pressure to deliver something. So no matter how good, fast, clean the current interface, is there will be an unveiling of a "cooler / newer / fresher" interface. But I think the fundamental reason reason is most likely because of a need to create work to justify salaries.
This happens in software, in design, and probably many other fields. Managers, department heads, directors, CEOs they all play this game. Sometimes everyone in the game realizes what's happening but they just go along because it works out for them (well sometimes it doesn't work out, but then they blame the customers ;-) )
Architecture is one example of a design (basically a cave) growing and changing to stay relevant and reflect current use and needs. Recent trends have been moving away from the "monolithic" styles of the Cold War Era and specifically including blocks that stick out and have a very different color.
Also, some fire codes allow the upper few floors of an apartment structure to be made from wood, so long as all the floors below the first few are concrete.
It's no different from the many other tools used by people to do their jobs. Once they reach an optimal form, they stop changing unless some drastic technological change occurs. Hand-tools for woodworking hadn't changed for centuries, until electricity was introduced. Electric hand-tools have only had small gradual improvements since then.
If the uncertainty was actually a bad thing in the eyes of the big cloud companies that pushed these designs, it would not have nearly gotten as far as it did. It's a way to control how the tool is used, given that it's powerful, making it too usable is not profitable.
No, it really doesn't. It can change, if change is necessary, however most change in UI design is driven by fashion.
The article measures what would otherwise be obvious, more visible whatevers are seen by users easier and faster.
Except that I remember a few changes in design trends and many of them were for the better, others were a matter of taste that didn't really matter.
But "Flat UI" was a step down in almost every aspect (or whatever name Google called pretty much the same thing, and so did Microsoft have a name for their particular flavour of low-poly coloured squares). It doesn't even look good (personal opinion). Indeed it was confusing, after a while we got used to it, so it didn't hurt usability quite as much, but it was never good.
Just an excuse to not learn about actual usability guidelines. And with that, excuses to hide your anti-patterns under, which the tech giants all happily do. Tiny links function sometimes as buttons but all buttons are coloured squares so basically any layout element could do something but usually not, and with a touch-interface this adds even more stress because you can never tell where you can comfortably rest your finger to scroll or zoom, if even possible, which is not indicated because the cute flat scrollbars tend to fade away if they're not in use etc etc. Nonsense!
If most of the normal interface is already uncertain in functionality, then users (or consumers, eyes, or products) will not complain as much when they make a certain action harder to perform on purpose.
We got suckered into hostile UX. So maybe we can stop doing that now.
One of the reasons why I still use Windows 7 is that I like its 3D transparent glass-like look and utterly hate the flat design of later versions which I would call soulless and ugly. And the UI elements are harder to distinguish for me.
That being said, many people do like it, and I am not aware of any studies about how many people like it / don't like / don't care in general.
Fortunately for us flat UI haters, that horrible design trend will go away the same way it came - as a fashion. Fashion by definition does not last. Sooner or later flat design will inevitability be considered old and unhip too.
People used to design for desktop first, then port to mobile as an afterthought. Originally, there was only desktop, and mobile was a completely different and separate thing. Then mobile got more capable, and by necessity (since everything was designed for desktop) mobile tried to be a small desktop.
Mobile was limited, and trying to be a small desktop didn't work out that well. So people switched gears and said "Well, let's treat everything as mobile first, and let desktop adapt because it's more powerful." So we began the mobile-first trend.
But in the meantime mobile has gotten much more powerful and less limited; today many mobile devices have higher resolution and more powerful cpus than the old desktops had. The screens have also gotten a lot larger than they were when mobile-first started.
So, I think we'll either wind up with a "tablet-first" trend, designing for the middle-ground and making both the smaller mobile and larger desktop adapt, or we'll go back to recognizing that mobile, tablet, and desktop needs are different and we'll design accordingly for each, but now with a better understanding and better toolset for minimizing the redundancy that can occur with split designs.
On the other side of the spectrum, plenty focus too much on being neat and consistent that they become greyish, bland and sacrifice usability. Good ones use colours, shadows and placements wisely so that navigation does feel lighter and the experience is more content-focused.
Excellent ones do all that but without burdening the audience with that nasty aftertaste of pretentiousness.
Learn the rules, then break the ones you can't agree with. It's the designer's privilege to be able to do this more often than developers can ;)
I'd really love it if MS embraced shell skins. There are so many great ones, but I hesitate to jump through all the hoops to make them work.
But flat design did spread the importance of contrast, simplicity and subtlety, not to mention using animations to convey meaning, which do wonders to make apps and the web look much better.
I think as we move forward elements of flat design and traditional UI design will merge into a new set of popular guidelines - hopefully they'll contain 3d looking buttons :)
I'd argue most animations today degrade the user experience because they're not done right. Typically, animations have too long durations, transform annoying properties, catch my attention when they should not, and too often just make common interactions more time-consuming, laggy and hence painful. If I could selectively disable CSS animation/transform properties in Chrome, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
That is not to say I like flat design, I dislike 'faux curvy 3d' design. Clean lines can be combined with depth perception. For this, very small gradients (i.e. to soften edges) make sense, but these are gradients that ought to be very small. On this 14" laptop I'd say at most 1mm.
I agree that gradients can be use tactlessly but I find when the colors are chosen correctly they look really well.
Of course bevel is also a great looking option
The article is poorly titled. The issue is not about Flat vs Non-Flat. It's about emphasis of elements in a flat context. The article highlights "flat 2.0" as a better choice given that it uses 3D shadows.
1 .- http://mirror.informatimago.com/next/developer.apple.com/doc...
Making it equally hostile to everyone is not necessarily a better alternative.
It's possible to design colour schemes that are suitable for colourblind users. Going colourless is not the only solution.
> You should always design your icons in a way that an outline is a good indicator and that a greyscale version works too
Unfortunately designers don't always do this - even supposed design-centric stalwarts like Apple screw this up. The icons in the Mail app for macOS always make me end up spending a fraction of second figuring out which one is which (new mail vs get mail, and archive vs trash vs junk).
The modern mishmash of anything-goes design with flat styling makes modern uis inscrutable.
The same argument goes to the LCD monitor aspect ratio 16x9 vs. 4x3. The former isn't any better than the latter. In fact, it has 19% LESS of screen real estate of the same screen. The only reason we all now use the 16x9 is because the mfg needed another standard in desperate to push sale because a good LCD monitor can last a very long time than the traditional CRT.
The higher res screens win on pixels per inch but are a bit narrow in portrait, what I'd like is 2560x1600 at 24" that would be perfect.
Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall would have never allowed this travesty.
Then iOS 7 killed textures, but introduced translucency to make up for its overall blandness. And that really ruined the simplistic beauty of UIKit programming, since everything now has to deal with all the band-aid that is needed to make views extend below translucent bars (layout guides, edgesForExtendedLayout, automaticallyAdjustsScrollViewInsets, ...). Here's a random example of how translucent vs. opaque bars can cause trouble.  We've traded a few minutes in Photoshop for hours of wrestling with UIKit's undocumented heuristics when it comes to layout code/transitions.
Honestly this isn't a big deal it's massively overstated. OS X managed to pull of Aqua and MS managed to pull off Aero both with arbitrary UI sizing.
I feel this point is only stated by people who came to UI when they only had to worry about 1 size and then were shocked at the idea of treating the UI as anything other than a Photoshop flat.
The difference is also (I think) the average size of teams which made the apps. iOS has started the boon of one developer per app. Before it was of course done, but the scale is not comparable.
From that point I have wanted a customisable iOS interface, where we are "allowed" to apply our own skins and themes. If people like flat design, that's fine, but it's unreasonable that the same uniform interface is forced on everyone.
Where are we going, if anywhere?
I'm waiting for the study on how many types of animation can cause nausea in some people.
There's some noise about creating the next interface for flat screens and VR/AR (Microsoft again) which as long as VR isn't mainstream, I think it'll be more of a play (and fad.)
I also think that the ideal UI doc (may not be the next trend) combine skeuomorphism and flat while leaving plenty of space for designers to express their own ingenuity through content. At this moment, you can feel UI dictating how the content should be created and organised; all those one-scroll container webpages and humble-braggy profiles bore me to death.
But the best UI takes a back seat while content is the main performer, OR, at the very least there is a variable organic component - Google's doodly homepage fits the latter actually. This sounds so stupidly obvious to point out, but I feel that too much effort is being spent on innovating UI than the content itself. Content is far more exciting and challenging! Storytelling is often done in one medium, but what if you use several, one for each small part of the experience? What if you focus on creating multiple micro experiences? (Not necessarily animated micro-interactions.) That for me is the real task of UX designers - not just organise flow but how best to present content as a memorable story.
Most designers are actually pretty lazy (or just prone
to following trends, like other professions?)
Or, you know, just went back to where we were, which was better.
Flat design was just a trend, partly as an overreaction to skeuomorphism. It was a case of 'looks' design overtaking 'usable' design, for no very clear reason; at least, no reason I can see.
Buttons were 'best' when they were 3d and button-shaped. That still leaves a huge amount of customisation for designers to work with, but those two very simple factors should be maintained when producing buttons, IMO. There was a very common understanding that buttons looked that way.
(thinking about it more, the most important thing - and the thing that's backed up by solid science - is to use text rather than icons for button labels. I really hope that stays, even if we go back to 3D and rounding)
That's probably a bad design on the part of the microwave maker. We still use tons of 3d buttons everywhere, and everybody is familiar with them.
>On a computer the most common button-like thing is a web link and those don't (generally) use the 3D-effect.
Links are links, not buttons.
I suspect that most people would have trouble coming up with a definition for a UI button that couldn't just as easily describe web links.
Buttons perform actions (that might also present a new panel).
The problem is bad UIs muddling the waters between the two (having a plain text "label" looking like a link that does "Delete everything in my account" for example).
Those are good examples, and got me thinking about the first hypertext system I used when growing up: AmigaGuide. That did use "3D buttons" for links: http://reality.cm/aguide.htm
The idea is interesting but it's disconnected from reality.
Change in the physical world is very slow, bet young people will still know what a watch or any everyday life item is in ten years (way more than the average software life). I understand that some people would find an UI for a music player with some photorealistic speaker or a fully wooden bookshelf library ugly but don't tell me people (old and young) don't know what it is. Or more far fetched I could still understand medieval fort icon on a firewall. I admit some are already forgotten like the floppy disk but they are an exception.
And that was what the majority of the world was familiar with since the mass explosion of desktop UI users with Windows 3.1. (And even the old mid-80s Mac OS had 3D-ish buttons and such).
I think the vast majority of apps/websites using "flat design" are an insult to what it is really about. Removing elements, simplifying shapes... should be done to increase comprehension and efficiency (i.e. removing noise), not to make something look "clean" or cool.
Regarding PC market. I assume Windows 8/10 could be good, but we were too used to existing workflow, so it felt really weird when it came out. They should gradually introduce what Windows 10 offers today.
I agree Flat UI can be terrible if not done right, but so can be every other design.
Having a table flat on a surface and have UI "shadows" move around with light changes would likely be a pretty immersive effect.
1.Icons are only useful for users that already know what they do. Zero value UX wise for new users. Labels matter, especially on mobile where hover is not an option. Having a "walkthrough" on first load is not a replacement. Also, non-native users do not know about hover tooltips, and they will not learn that behavior, they find them almost exclusively by accident.
2.Gradients on mobile, especially with power save, make apps and pages unreadable for everyone, but especially seniors.
3.Hamburgers and triple dots are not visual indicators for non-native mobile users.
4.Swipe is not an replacement for any UX process for non-native mobile users.
5.Canceling/backing out of any workflow is rarely obvious on flat/minimal designs. Seniors click/tap the wrong thing ALOT. Some giant percentage of their time is spent trying to reverse an action.
6.Zoom is king. Non-button looking buttons get even worse if you remove their context. Mouse over only context buttons might as well be invisible.
7.Seniors do not know what blue/purple/green text means. The underline is the only thing my seniors understand. Also, they click pictures, all pictures, because they are the only thing on these apps/pages that actually look like they are clickable.(see number 6 buttons)
If the native UI toolkit is a language the my phone is the tower of babel. And I hate that with passion and fury.
"Click the hamburger icon to open the menu."
"The three parallel lines; I agree, it makes zero sense, but now you know."
"People are calling those a hamburger"
"Cool. I see it, buns and a patty. What next?"
"It's signage for the thing you do to get a menu of options and settings. Now click the hamburger...."
That's how I have always done it. Bring things up with context so they are always getting a little bit of UX culture along the way.
Frankly, I hate flat design. The visual hints are a very good thing, and I have found explaining them once multiplies through all future interactions.
This crap requires a lot more fundamental explanation a lot more of the time.
As far as I'm concerned, flat is a regression. Maybe it's more efficient, but just in machine terms. It's not in human terms.
I've tried; three parallel lines in a flat UI do not indicate "menu" to a great many users; including myself, at one point in time.
Also, I'm a programmer in my 20s and I get confused by mobile apps all the time.
Material design is flat I think and is very good. I'm sure if we stick with it, it will be very obvious to those who will be old with me. What can we do to make it useful for old folks today?
I think this simply boils down to people having to learn how things work, and being able to adapt to the form factor being used. Be it mobile, tablet or desktop. There are UI conventions across platforms although that gap is being bridged somewhat (many desktop websites have hamburger menus now, for example).
Software changes and so does UI, not much that can be done except better education, otherwise we'd still be looking at the ancient windows desktop interface...
Most of the "flat" designs strike me as being created or chosen to confirm the hypothesis.
Explain to me how adding an underline to a link is somehow not-flat? What UX designer would use a "ghost" style flat button for the main CTA? Etc.
The whole thing feels far from scientific.
It is weak-signifiers vs strong-signifiers.
They have a hypothesis that states that users will be able to accomplish their task with less effort given strong signifiers.
They tested the hypothesis with two versions of the same page: one with weak signifiers and the other with strong signifiers. Both versions were created to _test_ the hypothesis. To either confirm or disprove the hypothesis.
They measured user eye movement activity and produced heat maps.
The heat maps confirm their hypothesis. With weak signifiers the users spent more time searching for the elements they wanted.
How is this not scientific?
Like all good science the conclusion is not 'flat bad, skewmorphism good.'
No, it says whatever you are doing ensure you provide users with signifiers.
So the final result is not a false dichotomy of flat vs non-flat but a useful set of guidelines: "Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces. Scaling back from those excesses is good for usability. But removing visual distinctions to produce fully flat designs with no signifiers can be an equally bad extreme."
> The experiment was not 'flat' vs 'not-flat'.
> It is weak-signifiers vs strong-signifiers.
I agree completely.
The title of the article is "Flat UI Elements Attract Less Attention and Cause Uncertainty".
Read a few of the comments here and you'll quickly see how the article is being misinterpreted.
If you read the entire article, you can see that the point was not Flat UI is bad, but rather Flat UI done bad can strongly hinder UX.
It makes no sense to just pick sites at random, you want to check the extremes so the evidence will be significant. To put it another way - you choose the most obvious candidates so that if you end up without a significant difference you can be positive that the hypothesis isn't correct. Following research can be more nuanced.
Yes! You're absolutely correct, and that was ultimately the point I was trying to make, if poorly.
My comment was more of a response to this post's title and a handful of particularly torch-and-pitchfork comments.
Second, I said that it's probably ok that they chose the sites to validate their claims, saying they do that often isn't a counter argument.
Third, twisting my word so blatantly makes you look childish.
Not to mention the fact that we're interacting in a text only site...
Third, what I've done is not "twisting your words" but connecting to your reply using it as a jump off point. I don't remember the name of that rhetorical figure but it's pretty common.
All in all I don't think there's anything you should be taking personally unless you have some vested interest in the author of the article (haven't checked, are you the author?)
"Hey, I'm definitely a link"
"I may or may not be a link".
As the study explains, link colour difference was enough to balance the scales. It's when link text looks the same as normal text you have a problem.
Flat design can go too far and everything looks the same, requiring more effort from user to figure out what's what, and also remember what's what for next time. I find this with iOS, my memory of the interface is quite poor ever since they introduced flat design. I'm only an occasional user of my iPad, but still... the flatness is irritating.
Flat design, done well, makes signaling easier because there's literally less visual noise.
Bad design is just bad design.
And yet, it's totally representative to things I frequently see on the wild (if not better than most, including Google's crap).
The title of this study isn't representative of the tests they actually ran. It falsely lumps together flat design and a terrible design hierarchy, which is expressed by the strategic use of contrast and color.
Further, some of the tests aren't representative of an argument for or against "flat" when they compare [a bright pink button with gradient and drop shadow] to [a white button with a light gray border], both on a mostly white page. Of course people will see a fat blob of pink faster than a faint gray-on-white, regardless of any drop shadows or gradient effects on either of those items. That's an absurd comparison if you want to make a point against "flat ui".
If you want to compare flat vs. non-flat, you better use the same pink button in both cases (or the same faint gray button) - once with and once without any effects such as drop shadows or gradients.
This study is very one-sided and merely confirms what any designer worth their salt already knows: you need to make actionable elements stand out from the rest of the content, plain and simple. Contrast is king, no matter if you're making a flat design devoid of any depth or if you're using drop shadows and rainbow gradients.
Let's learn, and continue making things for humans, not ideologies. That form should equal function, but only after it's passed UAT.
Because there is now a strong connection between the two disciplines I'm less certain than most that this will simply be a fading trend.
I never had any trouble with flat design but I do have trouble with all the non-convention that arises out of app style design, which I feel is the real culprit of ux woes.
This down to "what you need to do to make something stand out", which means sorting out the importance of elements and turning that into a hierarchy.
While there's no way to argue their results, there are plenty of reasons to argue their sampled materials.
Flat design doesn't mean turning a button into an outline. And I'm willing to bet the button would've performed just as well without the skuemorphic gradient, but WITH the solid background colour instead of becoming an outline.
Same with every single other implementation. They mis-implemented a design code.
To come back to my initial point; it's all about hierarchy. In any interface (wether on paper or on a screen) you need to direct a person's attention. This is done by visually prioritising elements. And there are a tonne of ways to do so. A gradient. An inverted colourscheme. An angle. A wording difference. A texture. Bold. Underline. Etc - I'm sure we could all go on for ages coming up with other ways.
TLDR: Disagree with their definition of "flat design", or the (exceedingly poor) way flat design was implemented in the examples they gave.
Frankly, I think that's a pretty obvious insight, but there are a lot of people who don't see it that way, so this research has value.
It seems that the research is well thought out and executed, but it fails to create any meaningful advice for designers - hertz' example is just pure bad design even before the question of flat or non-flat UI, the other examples that proved significant are also glaringly bad design.
A further study should fixate on a single aspect (such as in text links or navigation menus) - which designers could take real input from.
John Ive was only able to introduce flat design after Jobs died. Jobs hated flat design and wouldn't let Ive do it. Only after Job's passing was Ive able to go rogue and introduce the flat UI trend, which then everyone copied. The pendulum will swing again, but the damage has been done.
Obviously flat design looks worse, obviously it's harder to use. People follow Apple's design blindly. Jobs knew better, and Ive was only able to get away with it because he had more authority.
Usually a well designed UI should be easy to use, with important functionality highlighted in some obvious and consistent way. A Flat UI has no redeeming features, possibly other than appealing to some sense of minimalism.
All these seemingly small design issues add up and before you know it, you're losing serious money because poor design kicks your your customers out of the conversion funnel.
Also, mad props to NN Group for their work on usability and making the web a more sane medium. Their people have been doing usability research for decades and Jakob Nielsen's UseIt.com used to be one of the most useful sites for web designers.
Once we move past this madness, after a while we'll look back and see it for the unusable "mystery meat navigation" (remember that from the early 2000s web?) that it was. Trying too hard to look "clean".
In as far as Flat UI was usable, it's because of its ubiquity and that after a while we had to get used to it and somehow managed to obtain a somewhat common UI vocabulary.
Like the "hamburger menu", completely unintuitive until you learn what it means. I'm afraid we're gonna be stuck with that one for a while. It was supposed to depict a super-stylized drop-down menu, right? Except that some menus are now a grid of icons.
... and in Chrome the menu is three vertical dots, because ummm it makes people turn their head while thinking "...", I guess. (I was looking at Firefox when I described the hamburger menu).
At least the gear-icon for config/settings makes some sense.
People need landmarks, UI affordances and a clear mental model of what the UI should do. I understand and even agree with why Apple chose the route they did with iOS7+ and for the most part with how. But beyond font weight, it seemed like the other issues with the flat design were ignored because the company already chose a specific route (again, not disagreeing with that choice, but still affected and irritated by it).
And on a completely tangential point (I mention simply because the larger iPhone screen sizes came along, more or less, with the flat UI look), I also realize now that when it comes to phone sizes, Steve Jobs had it right the first time, and that bigger doesn't mean better. It just means a different set of tradeoffs.
I've never been one to say that Apple, post-Steve, sucks.
But I do think they've been far more responsive to the markets desires, for better and worse. Then again, I was rarely annoyed by the limitations of the iOS platform, so maybe I'm Mr. Stockholm Syndrome, I dunno. Nor do I care too much, TBH. I just want a phone with recognizable landmarks and that those landmarks be reachable with my ginormous hands on at least their smallest phone, without having to invoke a gesture to bring the screen to my thumb.
Meanwhile we now (maybe) understand why sites like eBay are SO effective for selling - they may be clunkier to navigate but people maybe spend longer looking at them and subconsciously ingesting all the marketing messages whilst around to find something else on the page.
The "research" is designed to give a certain result. If they wanted to test flat versus 3d, everything should be the same except for whether the elements are 3d or flat.
Flat design is not about using less colour to signify action. It is a lack of 3d and skeuomorphic design.
Most of the conversation around flat has been removing all the superfluous ornamentation (shadows, reflections, 3D icons) from when UI designers were taking skeuomorphism too far. So if skeutomorphism was about how unnessarily photo-realistic we could make UI, flat design is an effort to simplfily... to see how minimal a UI can be.
Just like any pendulum swing, some UIs way overcorrected and lost a lot of the small UI affordances that helped make interfaces understandable. Aesthetic preferences aside, it IS harder to know what's a button when buttons are styled to have fewer visual differences from normal, unclickable text.
You'll see that the most recent interpretations likes Material or Windows 10th Annivesary seem to actually be bringing back some of the depth, layering, shadows and other visual cues.
The answer, like so many things, is "just enough and not too much".
I saw that sentence, thought 'it would be most ironic if "presented in a contrasting color" was not actually a link' --- but then was relieved to see that the text is a link to another of their articles.
CEO: "Yeah, yeah, just go with the flat one."
Lowly designer: "... yes."
Give me flat design with cascading style sheets and lets have a real competition here.
I personally find minimalism quite ugly. But it doesn't matter, because objectively, it's less expensive. It is also "predictably ugly". Less chance to make it really really ugly => better from the business perspective.
I hope too much effort wasn't wasted on the study but thanks for posting. I'm sick of this stuff.
It would be like attaching wings to a car, driving it down the highway, and then concluding that wings don't really help with speed.
Or another example would be be to take Pharrell's hat and placing it on some random person's head.
Context matters. Design is not the sum of its parts.
Is there a particular way you think it could be improved or do you just think that we shouldn't try to empirically compare something like flat vs non flat buttons?
Says who? The author goes into detail about what exactly they were measuring. The last two headings are "When Flat Designs Can Work" and "Limitations of the Study." Can you clarify exactly what you found "significantly flawed"? I don't get what you're trying to say by your wikipedia link.
> What works most of the time might not work in your specific case.
So what? Is it not worth knowing what works most of the time and under what assumptions?
I feel like Flat Design works for a specific use case, though you'll have to imagine one because I don't know of any, but it has been applied universally.
Many interfaces I encounter nowadays seem like every interaction is an Easter Egg, where clicking / tapping around randomly is World's Best Practice for feature discovery.
If you want to see how useful wings are, build a plane.
This plane metaphor is ridiculous and unhelpful. We're not trying to measure "how useful wings are", we're talking about what the buttons on the inside of the plane should look like, we need two cockpits with different buttons.
* Button *
If i test it long enough, one of the designs will be a clear winner. Even when i repeat the test, i may get the same winner, concluding that it is the best design to go with.
But in the end, it's not about the button. It's about the information i want the user to submit. If they filled up the form that came before it, the effect of design is minimal at most.
Edit: also in this day an age, I'll be totally happy with designs that don't attract attention, especially when people think the do.