Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Business Value and ROI ›› 6 Key Questions to Guide International UX Research ›› Some Thoughts on Being Flat

Some Thoughts on Being Flat

by Jessica Holt-Carr
3 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

In the age of mobile, have we outgrown the metaphors skeuomorphic design uses to bridge digital and physical experiences?

Now that we’ve all had a few months to play with it, I think most of us can agree that iOS 7 offers some very exciting user experience features that set it apart from its predecessors. Features like the use of translucent layers to keep navigational context, the added depth of parallax movement effects and transitions, better and more intuitive gestures, reduction of information overload, and the removal of some of the unnecessary visual noise through flattening and thinning the design all have plenty of merit.

It’s not surprising there are many opinions on the updates since this is the first full rethinking of the UI since the first iPhone. With the trend to go simple and flat, some design elements have been purposely avoided. As has been well documented, the new iOS has eliminated some of the common skeuomorphic, or metaphorical design, that has been so strongly associated with Apple.

Forbes contributor Tim Worstall describes skeuomorphism as a “catch all term for when objects retain ornamental elements from the past, derivative iterations–elements that are no longer necessary to the current objects’ functions.” Some believe this design technique is only meant to be a bridge from getting people to this new mental model and association, and not needed long-term.

I think it makes sense for Apple to move away from skeuomorphic design now that users are familiar with the way things work since this is not the first iPhone. When we think about skeuomorphic design, some of the old metaphors may not be relevant to the new users. For example, many tech users rely primarily on digital calendars and not the standard wall-mounted calendars that used to adorn everyone’s offices and homes. We no longer “tape” on VHS or use records for music consumption or do our note taking solely on lined paper–our way of life has evolved and so have our metaphors. Even though the skeuomorphic design has disappeared from iOS 7, many users can understand the different features through muscle memory and the jump from analog to digital in many processes.

Our way of life has evolved and so have our metaphors

In his article “Does Skeuomorphic Design Matter?” John Payne discusses how “Skeuomorphs are stories of utility frozen in time. These new cultural affordances work because they leverage a user’s past experience and apply that understanding to something new.” He raises many good points, but I think when it comes to digital, there is a new normal, as many have discussed. We use things in different ways and these skeuomorphic design elements are meant to be the bridge to get users over the hump and adopting a newer mental model.

I do think, however, that the new iOS lacks some perceived affordances. The lack of containers around buttons and spinners and floating airy text is cause for confusion—it causes me to wonder, “is this a button or floating text?” And soon after its release, there were some thoughts on whether this new flat approach is affecting usability. Some think the pendulum has swung too far to be simple, and many agree a skeuomorphic approach just adds complexity.

Since we have had some time to get familiar with the new design, our mental models have shifted once again. Skeuomorphic design and the analog metaphors helped us make the jump from our old non-digital world to our new mobile space. But the old way of thinking is gone—we no longer associate mail with an envelope or lined paper with note taking. Skeuomorphic design helped us get to where we are today: independent of old mental models of a bygone era.

 

Image of apple, pencil, and pad courtesy Shutterstock

post authorJessica Holt-Carr

Jessica Holt-Carr

Jessica is an Associate Director of User Experience with Hill Holliday in Boston and has expertise in interaction design and usability. She has experience designing with desktop, mobile, and product design, as well as performing user research. Jessica holds a Masters of Science degree in Human Factors in Information Design from Bentley University. The focus for her degree was mobile and gestural interfaces and meta-cognitive aspects of human factors and HCI. She also has a Bachelors of Arts degree in English with a Certification in Technical Writing and Professional Communication. Other agency work experience includes Isobar where she worked on award-winning projects.

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Related Articles

Real engagement is about designing experiences that people want to have. Here are some things that games do well that most apps don’t.

Article by Montgomery Singman
Gamification 2.0. Beyond Points and Badges: Designing for Players, Not Metrics. Conclusion
  • Most apps use gamification as a manipulation layer to drive metrics, but people engage with things that are truly worthy of their time, not points or streak guilt.
  • Apps that people stick with do this by designing for intrinsic motivation, making the experience itself rewarding.
  • The true measure of success is whether users feel more capable, accomplished, and enriched for having used your app.
Share:Gamification 2.0. Beyond Points and Badges: Designing for Players, Not Metrics. Conclusion
8 min read

For researchers, AI tools are making the move from advising to building easier than ever. But the real obstacle was never technical. Meet the researchers who allowed themselves to create — and what the cost was.

Article by James Lang
The New Makers
  • The article says that becoming a maker as a researcher is less about learning new tools or skills and more about giving yourself a new identity, and that without fixing the internal permission structures that define your swim lane, even the most democratized AI tools won’t turn a researcher into a maker — you don’t have a founder; you have a frustrated advisor with a prototype.
Share:The New Makers
20 min read

Learn why authentic gamification is rooted in game genres rather than just collecting badges.

Article by Montgomery Singman
Gamification 2.0. Beyond Points and Badges: Designing for Players, Not Metrics. Chapter 5: Implementation
  • The article says that successful gamification is picking a game genre that fits your app’s core activities and user psychology, building satisfying intrinsic loops before adding extrinsic rewards, and iterating nonstop, and that without these foundations, you don’t have gamification; you have a progress bar that has a terminal point.
Share:Gamification 2.0. Beyond Points and Badges: Designing for Players, Not Metrics. Chapter 5: Implementation
5 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Get Paid to Test AI Products

Earn an average of $100 per test by reviewing AI-first product experiences and sharing your feedback.

    Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

      This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and