Apple's aesthetic dichotomy

I totally agree with you.
Apple app designers should go back read Rams’ principles.

If you’re looking for a good (designed) agenda app, I would recommend http://getappsavvy.com/agenda/

I completely disagree. The use of realism in Apple apps is entertaining and comforting.

I do hope they don’t lose this edge as it accounts for the differentiating factor we look forward too in their product.

You might as well ask Mecerdes Benz to discontinue the inclusion of analogue gauges on the Maybach….

@fodewunmi but why the contradiction? If this is “entertaining and comforting” in the software, why is it not in the devices themselves?

There is no contradiction. There is a bias from your perspective. It’s all about this:

http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/aesthetic-usability-effect

Googling the topic provides lots on the spectrum.

@alexhorse I am biased, and I declared the bias in the post. But you can’t argue that the two aesthetics are from the same stable (sorry about the pun). Gropius or van der Rohe would never have allowed such ornamentation in one of their buildings, for example.

One is modernist, the exact opposite of kitsch, and one is kitsch. They’re opposites. Personal preference doesn’t come into it; you’re free to dislike modernist designs, skeuomorphic designs, or both. But it’s meaningless to argue that they’re not contradictions.

I believe the sweetener is saccharine?

I’m not sure you’re entirely right about ornament and Gropius; at times, the postwar Gropius (like Sullivan) did enjoy a bit of comforting frivolity,

But the central point is that Apple isn’t Modernist at all. It’s working in a postmodern pastiche that embraces high modernism and simultaneously subverts it. Design minimalism with ragged edges and cordobra leather.

The difference between the hardware and software is that the minimalist hardware is merely a frame for the software to live inside. You seem to be taking your assumptions of other people’s reasoning to an extreme. I believe this is most likely just a bad overuse of aesthetic usability. I think the designers need to dial back their metaphors a bit (emulating my leather-bound friend-finding journal are they?) but I doubt their motivations are as insidious as you are implying here.

Regarding “They attempt to comfort us (to patronise us) by trying to show how they relate to physical objects in the real world when there is no need.”, does this not also apply to this website’s “hand-written” logo and sketched profile images?

@eastgate do you consider the more recent devices themselves post-modernist?

I’d agree that the original iMac, with its exposed workings, was but I can’t see how you can make that argument about the MacBook or or the iPhone 4. Rams himself has a great deal of respect for Ive, as he’s said frequently, so I’m not convinced that it really is ironic or post-modern in the case of the devices. Absolutely agree that it is in the software.

@subcide how is a drawing of someone patronising? The logo isn’t “hand-written” it’s actually handwritten. What’s wrong with that?

Interesting, and agreed. (Find my Friends is particularly objectionable).

Like you say, I think it’s a deeply held position, but only because of touch. Touch, technology and maturing markets have made for wafer thin devices that no longer express the same amount of tactility on their surface as something like an iMac v1, so it seems Apple believe in trying to reincarnate some of that ‘desire to touch’ into the software itself.

It’s not all working, but this iOS cheese is (so far) only a smattering of ugly skins and hopefully will be rationalised. But then I don’t think I’d want all my standard iPad apps running in the same chrome.

I think you’re right about the qualities of the style, but I disagree with your analysis.

Would a leather bound journal or a wooden pencil have been banned from the Bauhaus? Were its instructors disallowed from wearing traditional old three piece suits? How about a pocket watch?

Apple has been explicit and outspoken about how they want to de-emphasize the system in favor of the content, and to them, particularly on iOS, Apps are the ultimate form of content. They want to encourage app-makers to express themselves with emotion, and they are leading by example

Saccharine they may be, but the claim of dishonesty holds no weight. It is the claim that there is an authentically digital aesthetic that is absurd. Bits have no aesthetic. We paint with them what we imagine, and what we imagine is drawn from our cultural heritage. The so-called authentically digital aesthetic is just a style based on pop-culture images of what a ‘futuristic’ computer interface would look like which themselves are ironic references to the technical limitations of the past (green screens, black backgrounds, text-only displays, etc.). Digital authenticity is a regression.

I didn’t realize how much I disliked the leather on the lion calendar until I used a snow leopard machine yesterday, and I hope they improve their taste – but I would rather they move forward from the rich graphical forms that they are exploring today, than that they trap themselves in a delusional manifesto of an authenticity that can never exist.

Really great post, James. I wrote about this the other day – I think it’s easy to defend the argument that it eases our parents’ generation into using new technology; not the design aesthetic I like at all, but I can grudgingly accept that. The odd wooden texture isn’t the end of the world, even if I can see Müller-Brockmann rolling in his grave right now.

The problem is locking ourselves into inconsistent metaphors; paper doesn’t scroll whilst a tablet can – either you’re locked into a centuries old metaphor that isn’t necessary now, or you jankily break the metaphor (the ‘scrolling paper’ in Contacts/Calendar/etc).

The other problem is Apple using their position of power to foster a generation of aspiring designers not knowing why Apple do things the way they do. If the talented designers at Apple create things we’re not so keen on, imagine what is going to follow.

Skeuomorphism will, ultimately, break when the metaphors aren’t referencing anything anymore. When we don’t have magazines or Filofaxes – when our children have never heard of them. And then we can write it off as another regrettable moment in our visual history – like David Carson or Web 2.0

My post, if anyone fancies more of the same
http://designedbygold.com/2011/10/the-metaphors-breaking-the-future/

@Robin Barooah Interesting points. Leather bound journals and wooden pencils are not skeuomorphic. A propelling pencil styled to look like a graphite pencil is.

You’re right to say that bits have no aesthetic. That’s precisely what is so jarring about using them to evoke real-world objects in my opinion.

I hope I didn’t give the impression that I want computer interfaces to look like “futuristic” things – that’s just a different form of sentimentalism. I want digital design to ask “if we had invented the idea of a calendar after the advent of the computer, what would it be like?” That’s what I mean by digitally native design.

Agreed, James. Wrote this back in September. http://tumblr.com/Zq4Kby9U91kF

@James Higgs – I think that’s an important question that will help us to see new possibilities. However not only did we invent calendars before the advent of the computer, we did so literally thousands of years ago, and they are embedded in our culture.

The iPad calendar for example, is something that you can show to people who have never seen an iPad before, and they don’t see a computer interface. They see a calendar. The iPad is inherently an inter-personal computer, and this is a use case where the instant recognition triggered by skeuomorphism causes the interface to disappear. Without this property, it would be bested by paper on this very basic dimension of utility.

I agree that we can do better. The digital medium enables new possibilities that we have barely begun to explore. Are you aware of an avant-garde digital calendar that is a true classic in the making?

Only people who know the definition of the word “Skeuomorphic” care about this.

This has been an ongoing discussion about Apple for years- the sense that Apple is moving away from its supposed core user base and spending too much time appealing to the masses. How many people bitched about a pink iPod mini that only held 4gb? It was populist, they said, it was frilly– iPods should have 80gb, not 4gb! Stop wasting our time, Apple!

Went on to be their top selling product.

People are attracted to the iPad because it is accessible. Likewise, iCal’s visual style isn’t for people who use computers all day. It’s not for people who have blogs and it’s certainly not for people who blog about the design of apps. It’s for people who use the calendar once every month, and for them, they don’t want to take the time to learn interface conventions (even thought they’ve been forced to on Windows), for them it’s about the FEELING of gliding right into an app and immediately understanding how it works.

Many times feelings are mysterious and don’t follow convention. Feelings are hard for lots of hard core developer and interface wonks to talk about and process.We feel a revulsion from these apps because they’re so goddamned dripping wet with ushy-gushy feelings.

But they sell products and subsidize the development of faster MacBooks for us geeks. So we should just smile and nod and install Calvetica, because we’re geeks and customize our own shit anyway.

All that being said, and I’m saying this as a huge fan of sdw, I don’t know W the flipping F that Find my Friends app is supposed to be.

Dear James,
I can’t believe you don’t like sappy interface design. Next you’ll be criticizing the Windows “talking paperclip” character.

I enjoyed yer article a great deal. I like the image of the iphone prototype having a rotary display.

Sincerely, Speak N. Spell

@nrose the pink iPods are a good example of where populist (sentimental) taste has made an appearance in the devices themselves; I should have remembered that. But, and here’s the question I was trying to ask: why no pink MacBook Airs? Why no pink iPads? Why no iPads in a wooden case?

It’s not that I don’t understand why they have made these sentimental interfaces – it’s that I don’t understand why they only do it in the software. That’s where I see the dichotomy.

The most sensible answer I’ve had so far is that the devices “become” the apps, but the disparity in the two aesthetics is so marked that I’m not sure I can believe that that’s the reason.

Why juxtapose two aesthetics that have been at war for 50 years? Is that really necessary to “make the device become the app”?

Microsoft design has always been cold, corporate and unapproachable- that’s why Clippy and the "My"disease was so incongrous with the rest of the Windows experience. But I think Apple get away with it: I remember how long it took to teach my mother the concept of “files”- that they could contain anything, be accessed from several places, from anywhere, by any app, and be searched and indexed.

Apple seem to want to get rid of this flawed mental model of a generic digital “thing” for the majority of users, and make files parts of the unseen nuts and bolts of the system. What matters to most people are not “files” and “folders”, but “songs” and “playlists”,"books"and “libraries”.

The difficulty curve is so steep with computers that Apple have allowed compromise in their pristine aesthetic to benefit the user experience. That’s probably not something that Microsoft will be able to to with Metro by the looks of things, even though as a visual designer, I much prefer the aesthetic!

On the device level, I think Apple sees the device (and to a certain extent, the OS, as a neutral “window” onto content and task-driven function, and only sacrifice aesthetics when it will accelerate the learning curve.

- Andy Birchwood

I think Apple hardware stays minimalist so it won’t clash horribly with all the different aesthetic styles apps can have. The pixels can turn into anything, therefore the frame must not call attention to itself in any way. However, if the apps all looked like the new Windows mobile/Calvetica interface, it might call so much attention to the minimalism of the frame that it would be intimidating to most casual users, implying on some level “I’m from the artsy, exclusive future, and I’m better than you and all the objects you’re used to interacting with—if you touch me, you’d better know what you’re doing.” Even if the actual UI were super clear, it’s still a bit unfamiliar, and that unfamiliarity is one extra notch of intimidation. To casuals, seeing familiar materials that look the way you expect them to is a down-home-country backpat of relief. You can do this, you know what this is, don’t you WANT to touch it? It’ll be ok.

That being said, that light beige leather is HORRENDOUS. The reason for this, though, is that it’s the wrong stuff; it’s incredibly localized and evocative of the wrong thing: it’s the color of crappy souvenirs from a particular region of the US, and nothing else. The reasoning may have gone like this: We want it to look soft, to beg for a touch and make the user forget the glass in between. Soft calendar material=leather. Dark leather is for executives. What’s left…?

You are so wrong

‘regressive aesthetic infantilism’ – Dont forget you write this as a top 1% design-douche. I can say that without insulting you as I’m a douchebag too ;-) The view from the botom however is very different…

As far as MS goes – they’ve over specified the design to the extreme, this will restrict them in terms of innovation. But yes, its a nice UI if typography’s your thing

The Dieter Rams aesthetic of their hardware is to make desirable, to sell. (I heart Rams btw)

The ‘regressive aesthetic infantilism’ on the inside is actually why Apple is the worlds most valuable brand – they make technology usable, human, familiar…. democratised. So anyone, ie not just douchebags, can do amazing shit.

ps sorry to call you a douchebag…. but hopefully you get my point ;-)

You are so RIGHT. We were talking in the halls at work yesterday and brought up this very fact. You completely nailed the issue with this post. However, it is a subtle point, one which the nay saying commenters clearly are failing to understand.

Your key point is that Apple does BOTH and can’t make up it’s mind. That is the problem, not that skeuomorphic design is in itself bad. Well, actually, it is bad but that’s likely more of a personal design aesthetic and a harder topic to be definitive about.

@nathanwilliams you flatter me: I’m no design-douche. For the record, I’m a tech-douche (a tech-douche trying to stand at the intersection of liberal arts and technology).

@scottjenson yes, that’s what I was trying to say. I personally dislike skeuomorphic design, and I don’t think it has the properties that some commenters are claiming for it, but that’s not easily provable.

What does seem to be undeniable (to me) is that these are conflicting aesthetics. I’m interested in the idea that the devices are modernist so that they can become a window on an app, a window that effectively disappears such is its modesty. But I’m not convinced by that argument because it also works equally for apps like Mail or Safari which don’t have the slightest trace of skeuomorphism.

The Ap Store may be a good indication that Apple does not have an interest in default apps. The strategy is for consumers to customize the devices according to personal aesthetics.

In total disagreement. Why in the world would Apple need to decide that "it’s either one or the other, on look and feel issues. One design involves the look and feel of hardware devices, that must look "modern"for a very simple and obvious reason.

The other design decision has to do with software. Except to troll for comments, or Apple-bash, I can’t see a single reason for even taking up this issue. Software that places a user in the context of a familiar “look and feel” is an excellent practice.

Apple didn’t design Mac hardware to look like a desktop, they put that into the software design, where it made so much sense, and felt so natural, because it put things in a familiar context, it changed the entire world of computing, forever.

@scottjensen Q: Why SHOULD they make their mind up? It’s not actually a PROBLEM – it’s just a matter of taste – which is what @jameshiggs is saying

There is no issue here

Oh – and the app in question – wasn’t actually designed by Apple if you look closely ;-)

James Higgs – Mail and Safari don’t have the lightest trace of skeuomorphism, because those Apps didn’t even exist in the design period that you use as a basis for all of your previous arguments.

Those Apps have not been in existence long enough to be “derivative objects that retains ornamental design cues to a structure that was necessary in the original.”

All you have to do is look at the way TV was not accepted and an Internet experience, until engineers and designers began realizing that the experience had to be “more TV-like”, in order to gain widespread acceptance and adoption.

@gary etie – you say that the hardware has to “look modern for a very simple and obvious reason” but don’t say what that reason is. I’m genuinely intrigued to know what you think that reason is, when it isn’t true of the software. That was the entire point of my post.

I’d also be interested in how you feel Find My Friends makes so much sense and feels so natural when there is no real world alternative for it to mimic. And also why, say, Mail is not skeuomorphic when iCal is.

(I should perhaps point out that I love Apple products and use them every day – I’m in no way suggesting that they aren’t on top of things, or trying to “bash” them. It’s just that I’m intrigued by what I see as a fascinating dichotomy in taste.)

@gary etie – sorry those comments crossed in the ether. Surely Mail very definitely did exist in the world before email was invented?

James. I do find it an interesting question actually even if the blogosphere has been busy on the topic for well over a year http://bit.ly/bOu5pK http://bit.ly/tqtP5n. There IS a disconnect between the aesthetic sensibility that combines haptic surfaces so skilfully in the iPod and iPad. Possibly one could say there’s a 1000 year old tradition to draw on in arranging physical materials to be aesthetically pleasing and fit for purpose. The design of interfaces is a mere 30 or 40 years old and technology is moving so rapidly (touchscreen and mobile for example) that aesthetic decision making has very little time to become usefully enculturated, take on the kind of patina of use-bahaviour and emotional resonance that we associate with for example ,reflective surfaces or brushed metal.

You undermine your own argument (but not fatally) by including so much subjective assessment in there and of course whether one prefers Appel or Microsoft, modernism or post-modernism is entirely a matter of individual distinction and somewhat irrelevant to the argument. The Bauhaus as a building is full of lovely resonant decorative touches (such as the light fixtures) and don’t get me started on the decorative effects of the Barcelona Pavilion. Schlemmer, Feininger, Anni Albers, Kandinsky?

I think the problem lies somewhere in the use context of these hyper modern objects. As Dane Petersen notes, affordance depends on some level of coherence between function and representation. My reading of your post is that the coherence has come dramatically adrift. Why? because design isn’t an organised system, it includes regressive and awkward looking conflicts. Aesthetic function constantly evolves as society and context transform while new uses and behaviours emerge.

Certainly wouldn’t agree that a desktop icon is a metaphorical use of the word icon by the way. I think you’re talking more about cultural signifiers than design metaphors where icons are concerned. Although the use of files and folders is certainly metaphorical…

I have a wood case for my iPhone, and it is quite awesome.

James, nice post.

You did miss an angle. Apple has historically updated the look and feel of its operating system prior to a major shift in hardware. Remember the Macs with the translucent plastic around the screens? And the first renditions of the Mac OS that had translucent windows? At some point, the edge of the windows all changed to a steel hue … and about a year later, all the Macs killed clear plastic and went aluminum.

You could be right, and this may be a design gaffe by Apple. But I wonder with the recent (incredibly popular) leather cover on the iPad 2, if the intrusion of wood- and leather-feeling imagery in the OS signals that Apple hardware may be redesigned soon with more hardware elements? After all, how much further can the design company push glass screens, because eventually all that is left is a pane of glass.

If so, it’s not a design flaw, but a design integration. Here’s me, awaiting a new MacBook pro with a comfy leather back.

Um, I meant redesigned soon with “more natural” elements. Still.

Fantastic point. This has been bugging me unconsciously for years, so thanks for bringing it to my awareness.

The Pixar movies make sense. If you purchased and ran one of the most successful production companies of all time, you’d play their movies are your “default” as well.

“When Steve Jobs first introduced the iPhone […] he joked that the iPhone was an iPod with a rotary dialing system on the front. […]
But no one laughs when Apple delivers a calendar application for the iPad that tries its hardest to look like a real-word desktop calendar pad, complete with fake leather and “torn” pages."

You are comparing a user interface that would be awkward and cumbersome to use to a pattern-effect on an app? If you want to complain about Calendar.app talk about the numerous backwards steps it took in the move to Lion, like removing the sidebar with mini-month previews, calendar display checkboxes being hidden in a drop down… I could go on.

You then go on to complain about how patterns and textures make for a condescending inappropriate interfaces. Written on a blog which uses badly aligned graph paper to display tweets below blog posts and paint splatters on the content background? A little bit “pot calling a kettle black” don’t you think?

James, this is an interesting point, but I don’t find the contrast between the hardware and software as problematic as you do. There’s an old aesthetic exercise (I really can’t remember where I read it, sorry) that says a modern chair would look out of place in, say Versailles, but that an antique chair looks great in a modern room. (Was it Buckminster Fuller?)

That’s what I see at work here—the “modern room” is the device, the skeumorphic software the “antique chair.”

(PS: speaking of usability and design, did you know that when registering to comment for this site, if you want to include a website URL in your profile, you have to include the “http://”—"www.markslutsky.com" alone brought up an error.)

It’s not just the simplification that I wish the industrial design team would share with the UI team: how about a bit of respect for material? Apple uses glass, metal and plastic, and never (rarely?) paints one to look like the other. These UIs just don’t have that same honesty.

I understand where the original critique stems from.The first thing I do when I get on a new Mac is to disable the Genie effect, because it is a slow animation when collapsing windows. But I’m glad to have seen it once, and I do think it’s elaborate animation makes it clear to a user that their collapsed window is now hidden in the dock. And as a business and design strategy I would defend Apple’s instincts here.

Plain old argument against this critique: “Honesty” in a UI is an dangerous illusion in itself. It all comes down to whether the user can operate the interface effectively. That said, there is a fine line and many apps cross it. I don’t believe that Apple ever does though.

Context Qualifier: The elements are not core interface elements but are Apple’s own apps, so there is a layer of separation. These apps can be taken as suggested guidelines for how apps should be designer: don’t make them look like spare, default programs, make them rich experiences and don’t be afraid of reality-based affordances.

Postmodernist Defense (already stated above): If placed in a modernist context, non-modernist elements do not break the rules of uber-modernist 20th-century effite European designer intellectuals.

Usability Defense: Creating “comforting” elements that offer context gives the user some affordances insofar as how to use the device. Interfaces should be usable, and if comfort makes that possible for the new user, that is ultimately defensible. Someone who is uncomfortable with a harmless texture or torn bit of paper is a fussy baby.

Branding Defense: Apple is well known for sleek minimal design and for usability, and is extremely successful on both fronts. You really can’t argue against either successfully.

Steve Jobs wore awesome modern glasses, minimalist black turtleneck, both complemented with his workaday dungarees and five o’clock shadow. He did not wear cowboy boots and a bolo tie, nor do Apple’s secondary apps clad their works with distracting frills.

And as a leader he worked with and respected designer ssuch as Paul Rand, who was no stranger to whimsy. Steve did not seek to kill these designers’ suggestions to give the audience some "usable delight "to their cognitive artifacts.

“Mendacity”?

To quote Princess Bride: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A device is one thing. It’s real world. It needs to last. You touch it. It wears.

Apple, in the Mac OS X era, as always used its own apps as field experiments in VI—not so much in UI or UX.

For instance, no one’s going to say that the pleather stitching in the Find My Friends app’s nav bar in any way affects the functioning of it as a nav bar—it doesn’t even give a moment’s pause that the thing is anything BUT a nav bar. Visual Interface affectation only.

It’s gingerbread.

So it offends your aesthetics. Does the usability of Find My Friends go off the rails?

Does the needlework come undone after you use it too much?

Mendacity. The irony is starting to come through.

Excellent article! I have had a similar thought ever since I installed an early version of QuickTime and found the volume control was a rotating thumb knob, kind of like the portable CD or cassette players of that era.

Physical objects are constrained by the physical world they exist in. Projecting those limitations into a software UI is unimaginative and needlessly limits what the UI could be, in my opinion of course.

I find the wood and leather textures used in some software to be a big turnoff. I don’t want that in a UI for the same reason I don’t bedazzle my laptop. I also disliked Microsoft’s Clippy and their puppy dog search assistant for similar reasons. Shudder.

There’s some good points here (although I don’t agree with the overarching theme). I think the problem is simply one of consistency. Calendar on the iPad looks like its physical counterpart, while Calendar on the iPhone does not. However, Find My Friends is an app that maintains its look on both with leather stitching. Then there’s Game Center, which attempts to hit on a playful theme with a green felt background and serif fonts, while iBooks has fake pages that flick across the screen. This just needs to be fixed.

The part where I don’t agree with the author is the tangent he goes on when addressing Apple’s advertising, or regarding Apple’s use of mainstream media in its keynote events. Simply put, people know they’re watching advertising because…. they’re watching a commercial. No one drops their jaw when they realize that Batman is not a documentary of a caped crusader. Same thing goes for using Winnie the Pooh as the first book in an iBooks app.

Ultimately, the author forgets one thing. Apple’s primary target audience is American, and the majority of Americans don’t live in New York or San Francisco. The majority of Americans live in the rest of the country, and they’re not tech savvy, nor do they want to be. They like things that ARE mainstream. At the same time they are also human, so they like things that are pretty, things that feel nice in their hand, and things that are intuitive. Anotherwords, mixing mainstream with unique, beautiful aesthetic is the perfect business strategy. That might just be why they’ve been able to sell a few of their products.

Right on the money. My other design compadres and me have been talking about this Disneyified, whimsical bender Apple’s UI team has been on. Most likely straight from the guiding hand of Steve.

Now I understand people want visual delights, interfaces need to be a pleasure to use these days. Providing a usable easy interface but with a sense of fun and humanity (like Tweetbot for example).
Apple seems to somehow cross the line though, perhaps it is the values people assign to such trite decoration. Stuffy, old world, safe, and distinctly middle class.

I know I personally am much more interested in the directions that Microsoft is taking as well. I guess it seems natural that as Apple takes mindshare victory Microsoft is forced to innovate. Oh and have you seen the Nokia Lumia 800, new windows phone. I think more attractive than the 4 or 4s
http://www.nokia.co.uk/gb-en/products/phone/lumia800/

What do you think?

@JAMES HIGGS – 1. Yes, I said, "the hardware has to “look modern for a very simple and obvious reason” – the obvious reason being that hardly anyone is going to go for a retro design, in a piece of hardware. Think of how it would look on the shelf. Think of how unappealing an original iMac would be, in any color (as appropriately groundbreaking and attention getting as they were at the time) sitting for sale in an Apple Store now, compared to the current, modern, iMac offerings.

2. I know nothing about “Find My Friends”, so I’m not in a position to answer your question.

3. If by your comment, “Surely Mail very definitely did exist in the world before email was invented” you mean POSTAL Mail, then you misinterpreted my point. I’m obviously referring to the Apple App “Mail”, not the old, fading into irrelevance, Post Office Mail Service.

Read my comment again, with that in mind.

“Mail and Safari don’t have the lightest trace of skeuomorphism, because those Apps didn’t even exist in the design period that you use as a basis for all of your previous arguments.

Those Apps have not been in existence long enough to be “derivative objects that retains ornamental design cues to a structure that was necessary in the original.”

I like skeuomorphism, in software, because it provides familiar context, and for new adopters, a transitional comfort factor.

@GODOFBISCUITS do me the favour of assuming I know what the words I use mean. For the avoidance of doubt, I use it here in its only sense, which is “untruthful, a lie”. I think the interfaces I criticise here are kitsch, and I think that kitsch is a lie.

And, for the record, I used the word once.

@gary etie your argument is circular. You say that the reason that hardware has to look modern because people only like modern designs. My question, which you haven’t answered, is: why? What makes a piece of hardware different from a piece of software? People will apparently tolerate a corny, cheesy app, but not a corny, cheesy device. Why is that? So far your answer adds up to “because they won’t”.

Why was a post-modern case like the one on the original iMac considered cool and well-designed at the time but is now obviously unacceptable? It wasn’t modernist. The new designs are. That means that modernism in hardware design is not inevitable, but a choice made by Apple’s industrial designers. So why is modernism in device design obviously superior to sappy, nostalgic designs as you seem to be saying it is?

@ebels it depends what it feels like in the hand. From the publicity shots it looks like a giant iPod Nano, which I suppose is no bad thing.

The fact is that there are so many things that I love about the iPhone that it would take something truly astonishing to prise me away. I can’t see this Nokia coming close to achieving that. I hope they do, though, even if it takes them a while. I’ve always thought that Apple is at its best when it has some serious competition.

@MAX ZABRAMNY yes, it’s the lack of consistency that I find so jarring.

@James Higgs

Interesting discussion here. I’m not a fan of the faux leather calendar or the Find my Friends app. But, on the other hand re a point made above, your logo isn’t hand-written – not unless you snuck into my cube and scrawled it across my monitor. The fact that I it scrolled away when I went down the page suggests that you didn’t do that. I’ d have to agree that despite the origins of the image/signature, the very fact that its been digitized alters the authenticity and makes it not very much different from whatever code was used to generate the “leather” textures used in these apps.

@James H “The most sensible answer I’ve had so far is that the devices “become” the apps, but the disparity in the two aesthetics is so marked that I’m not sure I can believe that that’s the reason.”

I believe Apple’s own developer documentation makes this exact point. It might not explain the magnitude of the difference, but it does explain why the difference does exist in the first place.

My own assumption has been that from a market standpoint, it sells devices. There are plenty of people who don’t care enough to change away from the default applications, and many that do care would switch to more capable applications regardless.

It could also be that Jony Ive doesn’t have corresponding personality in the software org. Also note that Apple has done this sort of thing for years, (brushed metal textures, the volume “knob” in the later revisions of the OS 9 quicktime player). It could be in the DNA, and only recently have the visual designers gone over the top.

@James Higgs. – Never mind, man.Very strange discussion style. You ignore answers and points already made, even repeated, and seem to be more interested in extending the discussion than acknowleding what has already been offered, and moving on.

If you don’t see the obvious, and can ask "What makes a piece of hardware different from a piece of software?, even after I explain how context and a familiar setting is helpful, in software, and not so, with hardware, which benefits from a modern look, I can’t understand it for you.

James Higgs – I think you’re correct. The Nokia-Microsoft smartphone doesn’t sound too promising.

The new Nokia will go on sale at $500+, just after Apple has lowered the price of the iPhone to $199, $299, and $399. Doesn’t sound like a very good plan.

Whomever debunked the “why not make iPads in wooden cases?” argument was spot on. Jobs himself said, during the introduction of the original iPhone, the entire concept behind this now family of iOS devices is “the physicality of the device can’t change after it ships.”

The device is just an experience delivery mechanism. You aren’t meant to experience the device itself.

Oh, for god’s sake, then Apple better stop using terms like UIButton, because that’s a UIMendacity: it’s not a button.

Buttons reversibly bind two ends fabric and are often fastened to the fabric with thread.

Literalism kills.

Interesting article. However, i disagree with his characterization of the skeuomorphic or so-called “sentimental” design aesthetic as regressive and infantile.

Apple’s success may well be “enough said”, but i am compelled to speculate as to why this design aesthetic is so successful?

Rather than sentimental, i would characterize these software interfaces above all else as tactile. And i think there is a good reason why this aesthetic works so well.

Our brains like both the comfort/pleasure of tactile feedback and the predictability of behaviors implied by familiar appearances (affordance and metaphor). Apple seems to be leveraging these brain responses to the approval of it’s customers.

This, can go to far, of course and become not only useless, but distracting. In his example, the stitching in the leather trim pushes into questionable territory as ornamentation.

The rational, economical designs of Ive get away without such references to historical materials precisely because they are already real, tactile objects. As a result, they can focus on another thing our brains like… simplicity… low hurdles to approachability and successful use.

So the stark simplicity of the industrial design makes the device approachable and more easy to understand quickly. The tactile familiarity of the software design brings comfort into the experience to leveraging our past experience moreso than as sentimental homages to historical materials.

There is one thing you’ve missed: The different “looks” of the apps make it easy to quickly glance at your iPhone and see what’s running. Why else the rich “Corinthian Leather” look for the Find My Friends app? It certainly doesn’t model itself upon anything in the real world.

Nor, is unApple. The iPhone’s minimal design was done on purpose to distinguish it from regular phones. Pre-iPhone smart phones had small rectangular screens and lots of buttons. On the original iPhone, the screen is large and blends into the bezel to look even larger. There’s only a single large round button and not dozens of little square chicklets.

The software’s kitsch also distinguished it from the other smart phones which had limited graphics, so their design was fairly straight forward. Remember the look of the old Palm’s calendar and ToDo apps? Pretty plain because of the low screen graphics.

On the other hand, look at Apple’s Notepad. It looks like a yellow notepad. And, the Address Book looks like an address book, and the calendar looks like an old desk calendar. You can’t do that on your Windows Mobile or Palm device!

I’m not so upset with the kitsch on the iPhone and even the iPad. It helps me see what app is open, and it’s part of the fun. However, I do draw the line on the desktop. I might look at the iPad’s calendar for a few brief seconds, but I keep iCal open most of the day, and the desk calendar look with the torn pages drove me up the wall enough to modify the graphics to remove them. It’s now nice and grey which matches my mood when I work in my grey little cubicle drinking my grey coffee.

Did you just compare metro to iPhone and declare metro a success? one has sold more units in hrs. than the other had done since its birth and that for me is the tell.

Taking a step back from brand wars between the two giants, the iPhone design has this sense of immersion involved, there is no thinking and whilst the design aesthetics and texturing do and I agree, come across as a childish and “dah” the reality is its probably idiocracy working.

I personally think the metro design at first gives you a WoW effect of high scores, but go back and ask the same folks the same questions and compare their answers over a period of time and the ability to sustain that initial “pretty…” tapers off in comparison to say the iPhone?

I’d argue that the switching in and out of these child-like UI’s that represent the applications interrupt the expectation, it breaks up the design into smaller sub-pockets of design resulting in an unconscious bias towards the simplicity.

That beings aid, this is by far the most wiked post I could find on this subject. Now a fan of your blog.

I disagree. Here’s why:

Apple’s design principle for this platform has always been that the device should fade away in use, and the content becomes that which you’re holding.

This is why the hardware is orientation agnostic, why there are no buttons aside from the absolutely necessary, and why the devices aspire to be windows and frames into the software world, while the applications themselves aspire to mimic physical objects, both by elaborate design and by responsive direct manipulation.

When you use an app on iPhone, Apple aspires for you to believe that you’re holding the app in your hand, not a device running the app…while they do make missteps in how its done (the Address Book’s UI on iPad makes no sense at all) and the illusion breaks down, I think its a good design principle in the cases where they get it right.

I for one much prefer the much more digital designs that Google and Microsoft are going for as of late. They fit much better in the environment that they’re being presented in and feel like a step forwards as apposed to a step back

I totally agree with this article. We could argue about the relative skeuomorphism of the iBooks App, but this one is on purpose, since giving the impression of a book makes sense in that case.

I’m just wondering if what I consider as a “faute de goût” in iCal for instance, is not intended. Do they want us to get use to this kind of design ? What if leather is the next aluminum ? (I’m only half joking…)

@godofbiscuits those are metaphors, not skeuomorphism or kitsch.

I think the reason for the clash is contained in the two different ways the devices are experienced: outside and inside.

On the outside, the device is a sleek, crisp, powerhouse of an object. It looks perfectly at home in the Guggenheim and in that Maybach that someone talked about earlier. That allows the user and, more importantly, anyone looking at the user, to experience ownership of that device as an expression of the avant garde-ness of the user. “I have successfully navigated my way to the bleeding edge of the tech frontier” the device says to the user and the observers.

However, the user doesn’t want to actually navigate to that bleeding edge. They don’t even want to take eradicate the pen drawer from under their National Parks calendar in the kitchen even though they never use that calendar any more. They want to be hugged into the future with interfaces that are so familiar it’s as if their comfortable world was somehow transmogrified inside this tiny marvel of space-age marvelousness. They marvel that their very own pocket calendar is magically squeezed down to fit in this spaceship-porthole-looking thing and then resized to be big enough to hold every scheduling item ever.

That’s where the magic is. I can climb into my Bugatti Veyron and it’s going to have this little digital amp meter bouncing on the dash to the tune of my favorite song. I can pick up this piece of tech that’s almost frightening in it’s ascetic aesthetic and inside is a snuggly bound leather journal. That’s amazing.

Sorry but I disagree entirely with the premise of this post. In every single way.

The ideas are not in conflict – the hardware gets out of the way to let you interact with the content and the software.

Yes, iCal is a bit unaesthetic. But you know what? When it is in the background, it is easy to pick out every single time. Can you say that for every app? Uniform windows are not a complete blessing.

I was comparing Apples and Oranges (Ha! Completely unanticipated double pun) when I said the MS – Nokia Phone would be $500+ (actually $588) compared to the iPhone’s 4GS pricing at $199, $299, and $399.

The iPhone pricing is for a subsidized phone, with a new 2-year contract, and the MS-Nokia pricing, is, unless I’m incorrect again, for a unsubsidized phone without a required contract. Can anyone clarify this?

The Mac OSX UI was at first defined by Aqua and its shiny, almost lickable quality, glossy and essentially emulating a plastic finish.
(Exceptions to this included Garageband).

Apple then moved to a more metal, brushed aluminium feel for application windows until Lion when the default background was a textile texture and it seems they’re trying out the fabric/materials aesthetic for apps on the iPad and iPhone.

I would argue that the stitching in Find My Friends App is in many ways similar to adding highlight gradients to create a metallic or plastic finish.

Perhaps there is no default aesthetic for the digital. Perhaps my acceptance of brushed metal and grey linen on iOS devices is a reflection of the biases of my culture. In another time, another place, I might find them hideous. But I’ll go out on a limb here and state as unequivocal fact that these leather surfaces are atrociously ugly. Apple could have emulated the Moleskine, gone with something subtle and clever. Instead, I’m waiting for them to add turquoise and silver to their iOS cowboy costume. Halloween came early this year!

We can dither over aesthetics all we want, but let’s not neglect the fact that there are usability issues here is well. On the iPad, there are at least 3 fake leather bound apps that involve viewing data on faux paper pages: iBooks, Contacts and Calendar. They all work differently, with different interface designs. If I can flip pages in a book with slick animation, why can’t I flip calendar pages? Why is the calendar page torn? Did I throw out last month’s calendar? I’m not arguing for rigidity, but at least some basic consistency would be nice.

As for Winnie The Pooh, I think the inspiration is somewhat different. If you’ve ever seen the 1977 “Many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh” (it’s on youtube) you’ll recognize the opening sequence as a phenomenal dream vision of what an interactive book could be. The characters climb from page to page, trip over the sentences, and slyly comment on their own narrative. Diamond Age be damned, this is what I’m waiting for. You may think it treacle, but I find it a delicous pot of honey.

There aren’t that many Apple apps that have this design sense. iCal/Calendar and Address Book/Contacts (for the Mac/iOS versions, respectively). Sure, I hate these like everyone else does. Find my Friends and Game Center on iOS, which are such trivial apps that I don’t really care. Notes, I kind of like. Why not a legal pad instead of a white background? Also, I like the iBooks shelf interface, as it shows off covers. I could do without some of the more gratuitous parts of the reading interface but the shelf is the oddest thing to pick on—the Kindle interface of a list of books is actually less useful.

There are some third-party apps with this sensibility, too (1Password). But it’s still only a small fraction.

Completely agree with the author! I wonder sometimes how would Apple’s UI would look if Jonathan Ive would be also a UI designer :D

It’s not a dichotomy. You’re comparing the look of software to the look of hardware. They cannot, and should not, be judged by the same visual criteria, for they do very different things.

An Analogy (Started by @Slutzky)
The modernist/minimalist architects that were referenced all do the same thing: they provide a kind of neutrality. Their buildings provide appropriate amounts of shelter, light, bodily support and mask the systems within (HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc). But the living spaces are open, minimalist canvases for… living! Anything put inside them becomes the focus, especially the organic. And especially other humans. Sure, you can show them in “My House is Prettier Than Yours” magazine, but when you walk in, YOU are the focus, not the couch. Good architecture facilitates living.

Apple hardware provides the same neutral, appropriate structure that supports their software. Appropriate in that they provide input devices, disks, various i/o ports, memories, batteries, displays and such parts that are required for a contemporary computing device. Neutral in design so that each part is germane to it’s own function, and diminished in form so as not to distract from the overall gestalt. The hardware gets out of the way of the user, and (as previous posts mentioned) the “device becomes the App.” Sometimes I forget that I can receive phone calls on my Angry Birds machine. Steve intended these things as tools for digital living.The precise neutrality of the hardware supports that. The Apps become the focus, so that you can get on with living.

As to your charge that the calendar “denies shit,” I disagree. The torn paper is clearly shit.It’s not being denied, but in fact is a subtle part of the UI, indicating the existence of a previous month.
When I had a desk calendar, that was the most infuriating part: uneven torn paper shreds at the top edge. By May, I had to take an X-Acto knife and trim it.

Apple software UI is intentionally "saccharine"to evoke a base response to touch.

Great post; don’t let these lens flare lovers get to you. Apple clearly frosts their UI with comforting kitsch in order to sell more product, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They are not a non-profit foundation promoting Good Design to the world. They are a business that understands that good design sells.

Design is a tool they use often to good effect, but is also clearly a tool they will discard if user testing or profits indicate otherwise. Garage Band is another excellent example of overwrought complexity. They’d sell you leather iCal-fringed pants if there was money in it for them. I know this, can accept this, and love them anyway. I take the good with the bad.

Ugly. Yet, popular with the majority of people who buy iPhones. Apple is smart enough to have figured this out.

I agree with the author Metro (Windows 8) tablet/PC UI is really quite brilliant and forward thinking. Android 4.0 also has a similar direction. Clean, unfettered, digital, minimal, pure. Microsoft was also quite smart to add rich color into Metro, so they don’t lose the crowd that requires eye candy (i.e. the Apple crowd).

@max pfennifhaus, I’ve always suspected that it’s not so much that Apple are frosting software with kitsch to sell more product (they might be) as that they don’t consistently care or understand how people use and understand software. The obsessive attention to form in hardware is not replicated in software. Down the years (Jobs or Scully or whatshisname) Apple has produced a succession of ugly software constrained by metaphor or ornament (cf John Fass). I give you eWorld from 1996 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWorld) and Hypercard (1987) – a wonderful set of tools trapped by its representation in the limited world of index cards; and of course there’s the desktop calculator, about which there is a great post at http://www.marco.org/2010/03/11/overdoing-the-interface-metaphor.

And now Apple is selling cheap stationery products in a shop with one style only – ersatz leather. Sir, that’s all we have this season, like it or lump it. Evidently half of the sample above DON’T but we have to lump it. Faux brushed aluminium I can tolerate, it’s reasonably unobtrusive, but spare us the stitching, please.

@wiliam owen

Next up. It’s all new iBooks in attractive Macramé!

I don’t think you’re adequately differentiating between a critique of the particular aesthetic choices that Apple has made in its skeuomorphic UIs and raising a question about why Apple would permit such significant divergence in its approaches to designing hardware and software.

I think even many who have offered good explanations for the latter would agree with you that the particular skeuomorphisms implemented leave something to be desired.

With regard to the latter, in addition to the explanations that others have offered, I think Mad Men’s Don Draper has helped answer the question. http://youtu.be/suRDUFpsHus

One might interpret that video as vindication of the position that Apple is using nostalgia just as a means to sell product. And I agree that the skeuomorphic approach is PARTIALLY for that purpose. And why not? Apple needs to sell products. But I also think it’s partially a genuine desire to make computing on the whole a better experience for users. It recognizes that people do or at least can have an emotional response to the products that they use. Apple wouldn’t use nostalgia with the hardware, for the most part, because there aren’t much in the way of antecedents with which people would have an emotional relationship. But people do have emotional relationships with existing real-world objects like leather-bound calendars and address books and the good paper and canvass used in well made books.

By bringing those elements into its apps, Apple is making the experience more emotionally rich for people. And that isn’t just a matter of easing them into it. It’s making computing more human and humane. And ultimately I think both that that is what Apple wants to do and that it’s a decent goal to have.

There is no denying that Apple products are beautiful devices. Very simplistic in design with a futuristic Star Trek-esque look about them. The kitsch factor is a little disappointing for Apple.

There is a subtle genius quality to Apple’s design aesthetic and next to other products of theirs this "skeuomorphism"looks a little infantile and out of place.

It’s a great shame as this does the opposite for most of what it’s intention is. Instead of creating an aesthetic that evokes feelings of sentimentality it evokes the feeling that one is playing a child’s education game or with a dated device. For such an innovative concept and device series, driven by some of the greatest minds in the industry whose vision was to make computing sexy, you can’t help but wonder why…

Not sure why it matters. Apple has given you a device with a touch screen. If you don’t like the visuals, get an app that satisfies you. Apple could withdraw all of it’s applications and still provide the exact same device with the exact same functions, just with a different author’s name on the software.

In short, who cares about the supposed “contradiction.” You buy the book. If the words are contradictory, you can re-write it.

Interesting read, this really is a “first world problem”, but fwiw, a quick google and hey presto I have a unified address book and iCal, on my MBP at least.

http://macnix.blogspot.com/2011/07/change-mac-os-x-107-lion-ical-and.html

I saw an excellent presentation on the pros and cons of skeuomorphism delivered by @aweyenberg during the 2011 Web Directions South – http://www.slideshare.net/aweyenberg/realistic-user-interface-design

For those asking about the cost of the Nokia Lumia at least here in Australia we can get the N9 or the 16Gb iPhone 4S for $0 upfront on a $59/month plan with the same data allowance etc., so basically they cost the same. I only know because I am planning to buy a Lumia as soon as they arrive here (early next year I think). Yes, I am ditching iOS for WP7, but I won’t get into my reasons for that here.

For those who think the Lumia looks like a big iPod Nano, it doesn’t, or at least the N9 doesn’t – I went and looked at one in the local stores. It’s polycarbonate for a start, and it’s very matte, not shiny, also not as cold to touch. I think some people see a nano in the photos of the device only because it happens to be blue and it has that general curvature.

To chime in on the leather/paper discussions; I agree with those who state there is no reason to make the calendar look like a paper calendar, because no-one uses those any more. Making an app look like a filofax is a broken metaphor because no-one uses a filofax. It makes me think of the disc-as-save-icon in MS Word – can you even buy a floppy disc any more? And the font that looks like it is handwritten when you actually make a note? It might as well be comic sans.

Ugly, yet popular, seems to be a criticism leveled very often at Microsoft, it is odd to see people above saying exactly that about Apple (whether they really meant to or not).

The analogy for hardware-software might also be present in how the apartments or villas or condo’s are designed. If a particular builder/architect is designing an architecture it aims to keep the outer shell simple/modernist/(i am falling short of words here) but the interiors are more often a matter of personal taste. The analogy holds true in case of an apartment building that is designed for a set of people and does not hold true for something that is designed for someone in particular. The simplicity/modernist design is aimed at appealing to a greater set of people. The apps/interior you are free to choose as you like.
All said, I dont really like the find my friends app myself but then its a matter of personal taste which in this case just doesnt fit.
I hope i made sense.

The design of an object intended to display other objects should be simple, singular and elegant. Think of a window.

Objects contained within other objects should have great realism. Think of a tree seen through a window.

It’s always seemed this way to me, and because of that, Apple’s design approach has seemed intuitive to me. Hence I appreciate virtual objects with some kind of tangible realism; texture, for example. For realism, choosing objects from an era prior to virtual objects is a simple and effective choice.

Of course, this being the domain of design and perhaps art, there are many pleasing approaches. But Apple’s has always made sense to me.

The container (iPad) is not the true object; Magritte-like, it is the the app that is the true object.

I’m on the fence here, mostly because everyone on either side is skewed at such a great distance from an acceptable middle ground.

My personal preference for UI design is, by all means sprinkle it with showy but ultimately pointless wipes, twists, fades and textures that make it look like a stereotypical representation of the old-fashioned counterpart. I don’t mind that, as long as there exists the ability to switch all of that off in Settings menus. Having to manually re-edit textures and such on iCal, as a link a few comments above mine explains, takes Apple more in the Microsoft/Linux direction, where things aren’t perfect straight away and need hacks and tweaks to meet user specifications. Having faux-leather as a default option would be acceptable to me if the option to switch to other forms of Apple app skin were available, either as part of the package or perhaps downloadable content. Looking at it from the stance of a less technically competent person there are neither, which is odd because Apple prize a “one size fits all” approach for their devices (hardware and software) above all else, so we see a contradiction.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with those praising Metro as a great step in the right direction, because it isn’t. I’m running Windows 8 Developer Edition, and only because I could disable the Metro UI to find a faster if unfinished “Windows 7 Plus” underneath. The tile system is hardly new, and most of the miniaturised versions of apps (e.g. RSS or Twitter) were so limited in functionality you essentially ended up with a screen filled with apps that did very little, all vying for your attention in a distracting way. To me, Metro looks dated, something that would have been passable five or six years ago, despite not being that old.

To go back to my original point, I prefer a UI which is fast and mostly without frills. I think fast, I type fast and I don’t want to be slowed down or put off by pointless comfort-value features. I understand why they exist and that some people enjoy them, but I’m hardly impressed because when I think back to my Amiga days I remember Digita Organiser, a filofax-style app which had folded page edges and an early attempt at “page turning” animation. I didn’t like it then and even with improved presentation don’t like it now.

It seems to me there is a fine line between making a device user-friendly, and going too far resulting in one that endlessly mollycoddles and rewards even the simplest actions with some kind of carefully chosen sound or animation. You know what the latter reminds me of? A children’s activity centre, glowing and chiming when the child performs a set series of tasks in the correct order in order to aid early cognitive learning skills.

Are we so infantile as a culture that we need this much instant gratification from our technology, devices which after all are often used to accomplish more mundane productivity tasks? I would say no, but we’re fast moving towards that under the guise of usability. Psychological analysts have long known that people are more easy to manipulate/sell to when placed in a more childlike state of mind, and I don’t think Apple are that devious, but there are plenty of companies who are. It’s the reason even highly-inteliigent people who work with computers regularly will giggle and coo over the iPhone 4S, which other than incremental upgrades to screen and processor quality and Siri (which the Apple faithful won’t shut up about, at least not until a few more months have passed the the pointless novelty of the feature which actually dates back to early 2010, see http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/siri-iphone-personal-assistant/) offers absolutely no improvements over the previous model but has already shifted in great numbers.

This is not meant as a direct criticism of Apple, more what they have done to UI design by being so influential. Most companies shamelessly pillage that approach, and those that don’t can’t seem to innovate much at all, at least not in any way that would be useful to the masses. I like some elements of Apple design (and Microsoft too) and a few of their products, but I dislike the dumbing down of interfaces and blind faith demonstrated by the fans. When looked at logically, it’s just technology and shouldn’t be viewed as a life-affirming must-have piece of kit like everything else in the consumer realm is. I’d say first-world cultures need to step back and re-evaluate their relationship with products as a whole, and not just technology, but I’m starting to overreach and stray from topic so I’ll end it here.

No dichotomy at all. There’s a meta-metaphor at play here, iPad as the ultimate tabula rasa, one in which our virtual selves engage in a virtual world of our own design.

Don’t like the leather-bound calendar? No problem, download another calendar app whose aesthetic sensibilities match yours.

What a unicorn or lemur on your wallpaper, be my guest.

Thanks for the (clearly) advanced thinking.

Couldn’t help but remember – just as I read the 3rd to last paragraph – that there is a company that makes an antique “book” case for the iPhone. Maybe you’ve seen it?

http://twelvesouth.com/products/bookbook_iphone/

@danmunro holy shit.

@JohnMFlores that’s fine for the calendar app, but what about reading iBook purchases? Or using Find My Friends? Plenty of Apple’s questionable UIs are the only means of working with the data.

My biggest problem with skeumorphic design is that it creates false UI interaction suggestions. After reading a novel in iBooks, I switched to Calendar, and instinctively started grabbing at the stack of pages on the edges of the screen to flip through the display. This doesn’t work, of course.

This will always be a problem unless we somehow make all our UIs exhibit all the physical behaviour that the real world objects they resemble can do. That’s at best massively redundant, and at worst impossible.

This post tries to show off how much you know about design and achieves that successfully, but it also shows how infinitely ignorant you are about people and their motivations.Like someone already said, Apple doesn’t make products for the 5% of the world population obsessed with industrial and graphic design. They make products for the 95% of people who don’t care about all that stuff and do things emotionally and instinctively. Rationalism doesn’t move masses, emotion and instinct do! While you sit here and make your rational arguments only a few understand, the rest of the world sees a bunch of stuff beyond their knowledge and/or interest and walk away without retaining the message. Since Apple appeals to the emotional and instinctive nature of it’s consumers to move them, they care not about your rationalism and will keep doing what they’re doing until it stops moving the cash register. If they were doing stuff the way Microsoft does it, they would not be the tech company with the largest profit margins nor would they be the tech company with the highest value.

“Nobody laughs”?

Oh yes, I was laughing. But I was crying inside.

APple periodically diverges in this direction… consider how kitchy the original Quicktime Player was, with it’s fiddly rotating dials… but usually comes back to its senses. I really hope this isn’t a new trend.

Though I completely disagree about the value of Microsoft’s bizarre experiments like the ribbon and the Metro UI.They’re not careful incremental improvements like Apple usually does, they’re panicked “we need to change something, this is a change, let’s do it” reactions to a previous lack of planning.

God forbid anyone copy that junk.

If anyone makes it this far in the comments (or if they don’t skip over this to add their own), design is and always will be a reaction to what happened before.

Apple’s coming off a period of “futuristic”, “streamlined” designs in their software. They’re abandoning aqua in favor of surrealism. Also, apple has always had that one app that didn’t blend with the rest. GarageBand, iTunes with no title bar. Then iTunes with vertical buttons, and now iCal. Why? Because not everything can be perfect. There has to be room to improve.

In areas where they previously had the kitchsy textures, they’ve gone for a more modern look as well. They’ve gone from brushed steel in their finder windows to simple grays. Their icons are going from surreal to black icons in an orb. It’s all moving at the same time, based on how it was done previously.

You also pointed out how Windows is using a simple style, and this is coming off their rubbery XP interface, then glassy vista/7 interface.

Lastly, the use of real-world visuals on the iPad and iPhone is so that there is still some humanist value to the device. To this day, I would rather use a real calculator then the computer/phone/ipad. Something about the feel of the calculator’s buttons, the look of the pill-shaped numbers appeals to me. I can only imagine that people feel the same way about their desk calendars.

If anyone makes it this far in the comments (or if they don’t skip over this to add their own), design is and always will be a reaction to what happened before.

Apple’s coming off a period of “futuristic”, “streamlined” designs in their software. They’re abandoning aqua in favor of surrealism. Also, apple has always had that one app that didn’t blend with the rest. GarageBand, iTunes with no title bar. Then iTunes with vertical buttons, and now iCal. Why? Because not everything can be perfect. There has to be room to improve.

In areas where they previously had the kitchsy textures, they’ve gone for a more modern look as well. They’ve gone from brushed steel in their finder windows to simple grays. Their icons are going from surreal to black icons in an orb. It’s all moving at the same time, based on how it was done previously.

You also pointed out how Windows is using a simple style, and this is coming off their rubbery XP interface, then glassy vista/7 interface.

Lastly, the use of real-world visuals on the iPad and iPhone is so that there is still some humanist value to the device. To this day, I would rather use a real calculator then the computer/phone/ipad. Something about the feel of the calculator’s buttons, the look of the pill-shaped numbers appeals to me. I can only imagine that people feel the same way about their desk calendars.

I see no reason why the content should match the container.

As several people have already mentioned, the goal of the hardware is to be on obtrusive so you can use the software on your device.

It would be great if interfaces could get out of the way entirely too, but I’m not sure that will ever be possible with GUIs…

I therefore think it comes down to a matter of taste. I quite like the aesthetic / personality of the apps and the apps in question tend to be fairly low complexity so they can get away with it. My bigger issue is that the apps are often fairly poor at what they do.

Is the Google / Metro aesthetic really better than Apple’s pastiche?

I think Apple get the best of both worlds with their current strategy.
People lust over the sleek hardware, and are charmed by the quaint apps. They certainly make pretty screenshots and look good in commercial. It does no real harm and sleek apps exist for the power users who want them.

I’m rather very pleased for Apple trying to mimic real-life objects in their software.

Would you prefer rigid icons and swiping pages over wooden bookshelf and flipping pages when reading eBooks?! this and many examples (GrageBand, etc) are keeping the interface beautiful and intuitive.

Its all about what delivers the best experience rather than sticking to principles

I’ll go with Einstein’s relativity theory on this. When it comes to tech, form generally follows function, but as long as the interface remains intuitive and user friendly IMO. It is only advantageous in terms of marketability for users to choose ‘skins’ or have any similar option to customize the overall look. The ‘look’ translates to the ‘feel’, and ultimately can dictate popularity depending on the competition (if any).

I personally don’t agree with you James Higgs. What’s wrong with design that has skeuomorphism style? I think it help the users to understand the content in a glance and bring a personal emotion as it refers to their daily objects which they familiar with, IMO. I’m sorry to say, but I think your opinion is a little snobbish and I think the minimalism style has took over your mind a lot. Less is not always more. What the important thing is to deliver the message (in this case, a function of an app) easily to users with a visually pleasing way.

James, I agree with you on the skeumorphism and the strange disconnect between Apple hardware and Apple software. However, I have a point of disagreement: the kitschiness and aesthetic badness does not naturally follow from the skeumorphism. I think three conditions have to be met, and have been met by Apple in the last two years, to take the skeumorphism and other non-practical elements to the level of silliness and terrible design that you accuse Apple of: (1) the attention to the frills impedes functionality or creates visual discordance: modern menus popping up over archaic design, or the sacrifice of the modern element in order to maintain the archaic look as in the case of the skeumorphic calendar in Lion from which the functionally useful calendar list was exorcised (in favour of a modern dropdown menu!); an even more egregious case is when the skeumorphic metaphor actually gives the wrong impression, such as in Address Book which is designed to look like an open book, but in which one cannot flip pages (though you can see them behind the open page (also, what sort of book has a listing or grouping on one page and the contents on the opposing one?), (2) the skeumorphism or frill has to be poorly designed… the linen textures, spring effect, etc are at worse superfluous, but at best provide a visual relief from the starkness of typical digital interfaces. On the other hand, in apps like Find my X (where X = phone/mac, friends, etc) the text pushes up against edges, elements do not appear well placed, etc) — this is just bad design, period, but is likely the result of prioritising the wrong thing.

I forget what my third point was :-). Cheers!

Thanks for making me think about this, James, and formulating this dissent: http://ixjy.com/post/30090964006/in-defense-of-apple-and-skeuomorphism-in-software

@danmunro or maybe you are talking about one these iPhone wallet type deals: http://www.squidoo.com/best-iphone-4s-accessories