Hacker News Reader

Comment by meerita | Hacker News Reader

Please, no. I mean, I'm ok some websites go this way, but overal, I preffer the cleanness of the flat style for most of the services.

View on HN

Can't there be a middle ground? I have a real hard time with the flat low-contrast design that's everywhere.

The low contrast material design makes it incredibly difficult to navigate, you constantly have to guess what is a button and what is not.

I think something like Windows 95 is peak interface design. Sounds facetious but think about it: Controls are clearly distinguished from content with not only colors but bevels. Buttons often have both icons and text so you don't have to guess what the button does. Overall it leverages real world spatial metaphors extremely effectively to produce an interface that is very intuitive. You never have to ask yourself whether a button is a dialogue or an input field because they look visually distinct.

Sure, anything can be possible. But the reality is when some trend is promoted, lots of services change their functional design system for a new one that really don't fit at all.

For example Typeform, ruined completely because of this. Dropbox, completely ruined to please their 50 design team. iOS 7, completely ruined with a silly flat style who was perfectly addressed in Android with Material Design. Same with Windows, they wanted to go translucent because Mac OS X did it properly. They made the worst one.

Every single trend like this must be serioulsy explored, and implemented once that exploration is well poured. But on final products, just to satisfy that feeling of freshness or innovation, nah, better not do that.

Windows 95 is so good because Microsoft put significant effort into making it that way. The design process was backed by usability studies featuring users of all skill levels. It was designed to be approachable by new users (new not only to Windows, but to computers in general), without hindering more advanced users.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/238386.238611

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12330899

I believe that the limitations of common consumer hardware of the time also helped. Designing around 640x480x4 basically forces designers to focus on function over form. Whereas today, one could get so lost in trying to make an interface beautiful, that they forget it's ultimately a tool.

Yes, 95 was a remarkable achievement. Both Mac OS 9 and 95 were top of the UX back then. But after that, Apple made OS X, which introduced a new paradigm, look, etc. Windows just crashed with rare translucid UI implementation, then, on the flat design introduction they did Metro, another failure because the need to be on the same train

I've hated flat.. It lacks the intuitiveness of what can be pressed and what can't. And it looks unsophisticated in my opinion.. I always liked the skeuomorphism unless it was totally overdone liked the iOS notepad app or its game center.

Yes, flat can be bad if not done properly. But the bad on flat is x1000 better than any other style applied mediocrely.

Flat is nice but a bit boring and every website looks the same. Designers should start using some textures, shadows and gradients a bit more to add depth.

I kinda miss skeuomorphism, one of my first websites was a blackboard with a chalk font I made for my high school in 2009.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com