Skeuomorphism: The Opiate of the People
It probably goes without saying that I am a huge fan of Apple; as is almost everyone in the design field. However, their UI, especially in iOS, has always bothered me. For a company with such excellent taste and attention to design, the skeuomorphism of their mobile operating system seems so completely out of place. How can a company that is always on the cutting edge of hardware and experience be satisfied to cheaply emulate “real life” objects in their UI? Many people have simply written it off to taste, presuming that Apple wanted iOS to be approachable, even cute; but this argument never satisfied me. Their hardware never sold on personality. (Ok, for awhile it did, but not very well as compared to more recent products) In recent years it’s been minimal and neutral, successful for its excellence of design, build quality, and innovation.
I am not alone in this qualm. In fact, I would venture to say that the majority of the design and UI community takes issue with the leather stitching, mandatory shine, and linen textures of iOS. But today I came across this thought from Oliver Reichenstein of iA that changed the way I think about the issue:
Half way through the Steve Jobs Biography, the biggest revelation for me so far is the clash between Raskin and Jobs. It’s a clash between serious design and selling design:
1. Serious design does not necessarily sell well. That’s why it needs to be expensive to even exist.
2. What sells is sentimentalism, nostalgia, solemnity—what sells is kitsch. That’s why kitsch can be so cheap. Because it sells so well.That is true for any kind of design. And this is why iCal has this fucking leather surface that makes any user interface designer puke wet feverish dogs. And that’s why Apple has so much money in the bank. Not because of the mind blowing design of its hardware. (They always had the nicest hardware). But because people are sold through its nostalgic interface. The winning path started with OSX, the interface “you want to lick.” Kitsch interfaces makes the average user think:
“I know how to use this!” (which is always a false promise)
instead of
“Looks like I need to learn to use this.” (which is always the case)
In practice, Jef Raskin’s serious design approach would win hands down against the Jobs approach—but Jef would not even get the chance to compete, because no one cares about serious design before getting in touch with it.
I don’t agree with it all, but there is a big revelation in there for me. Some people believe that skeuomorphism makes an interface easier to use, or more intuitive for the user, and I simply don’t buy that. But what hadn’t occurred to me is that it doesn’t matter if it actually does make it easier to use, all that matters is that it makes the average person think it’s easier to use. In reality, a user must take time to learn any interface, whether clad in faux leather or not. The skeuomorphism in iOS plainly tricks people that might otherwise walk away, convinced that they can’t learn something new, into putting in the time required to get acclimated to a new interface.
For every one designer pointing out flawed and unnecessary ornamentation in iOS, one hundred non-designers, normal people, are tricked into thinking they understand something new.
Apple has become increasingly mainstream with the success of the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad. They always appealed to the creative class, those with a trained eye and developed taste, but now they’re in the pockets of an incredibly diverse chunk of the population. They recognize this, and they’ve draped artificial linen over the eyes of the everyman so the future doesn’t scare or intimidate him too much. Skeuomorphism, in Apple’s case, is not a cute style or an attempt to make their interfaces easier to use, but instead a way to ease us on to the new frontier.
I am certainly not off to throw a linen texture on the apps we’re working on at Friends of The Web, but I am definitely thinking about skeuomorphism differently now.
Thanks to Cemre Güngör for turning me on to the post from Oliver.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
23 Comments
Well put Andy, I don’t really care for the over-textured interfaces but they also don’t drive me into a violent rage. Thinking about the skeu this way definitely changes things.
I think what you’re describing here is the Aesthetic-Usability effect which is something designers have known for a long time.
While I understand that on a superficial level making things look like objects might ease the performance anxiety of a less computer-literate crowd like seniors, it still seems to me like a cheap cop-out used instead of a serious reflection on how to accomplish a goal to help the user grow, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator.
There are many things in Apple’s design language that make for good screenshots but for poor efficiency, and I face them every day as a Mac user. It’s sad that we’re bringing all that baggage with us in the era of touch computing. I applaud Google’s new design direction of bold design, Duarte is doing an excellent job that will become more and more evident as they get to refine the whole experience; Ice Cream Sandwich is an enormous step forward in that sense.
@Andrew — The reason it always bothered me so much is because Apple is such a taste-maker. They do something for a specific, considered reason and that style or design cue reverberates through the design community getting applied and misused left and right. It felt irresponsible before I started seeing this side of the issue.
@Luca — Thanks for the thoughtful comment. A few thoughts:
At first, I too thought the skeuomorphism was catering to the lowest common denominator, but after further reflection, I think it’s catering to the majority. We’re in the 1% on this issue, and everyone from my grandparents who don’t know how to work a computer to my younger sister who grew up with them are the targets of this deception. We’re the early adopters, the ones willing, and indeed usually excited, to give something new a chance. In this case, I think we’re the minority.
Also, skeuomorphism isn’t directly connected to a successful, usable UI. To throw some leather on a crappy interface would be a cop out, but if the UI is already stable, effective, and usable, perhaps making it look “real” just lowers the barrier of entry without taking away from the core usability.
I haven’t made up my mind about Google yet…
Look at all the skeuomorphism on this piece:
http://www.andymangold.com/none-can-compare/
Isn’t that red line skeuomorphism? I bet those images aren’t really crossed out by hand on every page.
Sometimes skeuomorphism is good, sometimes it’s bad. I think Apple does a good job with their textures and details, but a lot of people have tried to emulate that with much less success.
Is the problem with iCal subjective dislike to the leather texture and the frayed paper, or does that actually make the app more difficult to use? If iCal had the same 75px menu bar with the same buttons and UX design, but the Lion default grey UI chrome would the app be easier to use? I really don’t think so.
The problem with the overdone skeumorphism occurs when the over-the-top visual design of the UI gets in the way of functionality. Look at the mess of to-do apps for iPad. In Apple’s case I don’t see the superficial visual design realism making the app any more difficult to use than one with the “stock” UI.
@Jon — Skeuomorphism “is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues to a structure that was necessary in the original.” or “an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material” (via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph) It’s not simply a reproduction or representation of something. No, the red line is not skeuomorphism.
I don’t think that Apple’s skeuomorphism detracts from their interface’s usability, and I did not mean to imply as much. It is certainly subjective dislike. In the same way, their computers being pink and made of plastic wouldn’t make them slower, but their taste in hardware aesthetics has been consistently excellent. I hold them to a high standard and have always wanted the same taste applied to their software.
“Is the problem with iCal subjective dislike to the leather texture and the frayed paper, or does that actually make the app more difficult to use? ”
No. I think the point here is that hastily done skeuomorphism creates false affordances, such as those described in this article:
http://aaronweyenberg.com/699/is-realistic-ui-design-realistic
These false affordances do make the app more difficult to use because things don’t work as expected.
“Also, skeuomorphism isn’t directly connected to a successful, usable UI. To throw some leather on a crappy interface would be a cop out, but if the UI is already stable, effective, and usable, perhaps making it look “real” just lowers the barrier of entry without taking away from the core usability.”
This.
The only place where it truly bothers me in iOS is in iBooks, where they haven’t taken the skeuomorphism further enough to have the thickness of the stacked pages actually adjust based on how far into a book you are, like a real book does. You flip and flip, but it’s indicating that you’re on the same page. And a book interface is something that you spend hours with, trying to free yourself from distraction, so the fake pages are always nagging at me.
I wonder if Apple would ever at the option to turn the chrome off in this instance (I don’t see a need with Game Center or Find My Friends, where the skin is part of the “brand” of the app). They’re already letting me choose between white and sepia…
“That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works” – Steve Jobs, New York Times, The Guts of a New Machine, 2003
If you really think about that, it goes beyond what 99% of “designers” do on a daily basis. Our job isn’t Art Direction it’s function, property and it’s behavior for humans (thus it’s reflection of and on a business). In that regard Apple may have taken a step at decorating their interface in a such a manner that attracted us because in reality their design is very short. In respect to products throughout the world, all Apple products direct their customers in very exact places, there’s little to no room for improper interpretation architecturally. Which I believe is why such a large demographic (ages 5-50) are able to learn Apple products so quickly. Because in reality, they’re not a very complex in regard to architecture.
If they didn’t decorate it, we might not be attracted to learn how beautiful “simple” is. When I think about this thought, I think of the company deciding to make the iMac into multi-colored machines that garnished them enough business to be the Apple we see today.
End note: If you think about skeumorphism, that could just be part of their design to sell the simplicity (this is a multi-tiered thought – business model, market, purpose, value, etc.) and we’re all fooled into believing it’s the way good products must look (look being the key word).
Skeuomorphism isn’t just about linen textures and what not. I think this is a pretty clear indication of where this kind of thing can go http://cargocollective.com/jonaseriksson#2227355/76-Synthesizer
How a person will try to use a computer sometimes doesn’t relate to its ease of use. Think about people, not things.
Wow, I’m really amazed that the purpose of skeumorphism isn’t more obvious. This is not a taste decision this is a design decision.
I’ll take the iPhone as an example, but the reason is applicable to all of the products.
The exterior of the iPhone is a technological design. It is minimalist, but it isn’t pretending to be something else, like a phone. Notice that- the iPhone does not try to look like a phone. It looks like an artifact that belongs in 2001: A Space Odessey.
It does this because it is an artifact of technology. It is a flexible computer that, one minute is a phone, and another minute is a portable email terminal, and a third minute is your datebook.
Thus there is no skeumorphism in the physical device because the physical device cannot change with the software being run.
But, the UI can and does. By looking like its made out of leather when using the datebook, it tells you that it is a date book.
Its that simple. You look at it, and you instantly know what app is running.
When you close the device, and go away, you forget the context that you left it in, but it remembers. So, after pushing the home button and swiping to log in, you’re immediately presented with a UI that you don’t have to stop and think for a few minutes about to figure out what it is.
skeumorphism serves a design purpose.
It’s no wonder that the internet is full of people saying that Apple is doing it wrong simply because they don’t know enough to know what correct is, when you have genuine professional designers failing to grasp the design purpose of a choice like using skeumorphism.
@Engineer — I am curious why you decided to remain anonymous.
The goal of skeuomorphism, as you’ve described it here, can be accomplished without faux leather and stitching; in fact it can be accomplished without skeuomorphism at all. I agree completely that each and every app should have a distinctive appearance, and more importantly feeling, so that it can be easily and quickly differentiated. However, I believe firmly that this can be accomplished without ornamentation or material emulation. I would in fact argue that any app with a unique function, if well designed, should look inherently individual and recognizable.
With all due respect, Mr/Ms Anonymous Engineer, it seems that you have shoehorned yourself into one, easy and mediocre solution to this problem. This is why designers exist; we’re not so easily satisfied. Skeuomorphism is a slope. not a binary, and I’m sure it will always be around to some degree, but leather and linen is a trend and a phase, and I can’t wait until we can look back on it and laugh.
Nick: You see a lot of skeuomorphism in Audio applications. It seems that musicians, at least those that like synthesizers, love oscilloscope-like things with fancy led buttons. I am guilty of writing one too in the DOS age :-) It’s a bit of sentimentality for the 70′s-80′s, I think…
In computer game interfaces there is also a lot of it. I am not a psychologist but I think a certain degree of skeuomorphism makes it “fun” in a lot of people’s eyes. A calendar that looks like a calendar will engage more than a “boring” Outlook Calendar (and will piss off some others, seemingly, but heh…).
On a computer screen you have infinite possibilities how you’re going to show something. Why is it a problem to accommodate the feelings of your customers, and why would something abstract such as “minimal design” be a higher goal?
Just a question. Don’t get me wrong, Of course you can go over the top. It’s a balance thing. I also don’t like the recent trend of user interface “chrome” filling up more and more parts of the screen, taking away from the content.
I totally agree that the executive leatherette look is butt-ugly — bleh. My main objection with it is that I greatly dislike physical items with that sort of false status-setting appearance, not the fact that it’s a skeuomorph of a day planner. It’s that it looks like _that kind_ of day planner.
Further, I think it’s simplistic to broadly suggest that making something virtual look like it’s physical analogue is primarily about catering to a “lesser” audience or capitalizing on the whiz-bang “moment of sale”.
The fact is that the real-world is full of objects which have a culture around them that set a tone. Teriyaki packaging looks different than the lettering on power tools, for instance. They don’t have to, but generally speaking, they do. It’s not just about communicating a specific message, it’s about visually operating within a vernacular and standing on the shoulders of what came before. It’s worth noting that skeuomorphism in technology serves such a function as well.
I think the dictionary and calculator the on the Mac are good examples of skeuomorphism. In the first case it’s all about typography setting the tone because it looks similar to the physical version of the same. You know where you are and what you’re doing in the dictionary and intuitively trust it because it evokes cues that you associate with the idea of “dictionary”. With the calculator the whole point is to solve the math problem at hand and get you back on your way. It might seem absurd to mimic an extremely limited computer on a massively more powerful computational device… but that’s exactly the point. It’s a conceptually small tool for a small problem.
Or OS X’s Time Machine. It is, of course, mimicking a common time travel interface shown in sci-fi. If you have ever had to deal with backup tapes or the like, you’ll know that the interface is brilliant in that it saves you all sorts of mental gymnastic trying to visualize chronology. It’s quite cheesy, but only because it’s well-understood. The concept is pure kitsch at this point. But the reason it works in an interface is the reason it worked in endless sci-fi movies: it’s a simple, familiar conceptual framework for thinking about dimensions in a certain way. That’s a powerful reference!
Yup. I wrote about the same thing a while back: http://ianstormtaylor.com/articles/metaphor-on-the-ipad/
Though granted it was not written with to be blogged, and there are some things I’ve since changed my mind about.
Thank you for this. I wish I had stumbled in here sooner, before writing my own long read takedown of design principles and skeuomorphism as this debate sheds a very revealing light on the issue.
Incidentally, the examples of good skeuomorphism on the mac that Kris brought up are abhorred by some people (like Marco Arment who created Instapaper http://www.marco.org/2010/03/11/overdoing-the-interface-metaphor). Sticking to the physical blueprint of a calculator on screen constricts you in a way that takes away all the things a calculator could be, once freed from its shell.
But I must agree with you on the key takeaway: skeuomorphism itself does not make an interface better or worse just for being there. It is not like salt you add to a dish to bring out flavor to the point of overdoing it, it brings a flavor profile of its own. That is what I was trying to explain in more detail (as well as a recipe for how you can cook up good interfaces with it, if you forgive the kitchen metaphor) in my own blog post.
Starting from this premise I feel you can still go and critique Apple’s design for when it does work and for when it fails to use skeuomoprhism successfully. Plus, on a somewhat meta-level besides usability and user appeal there are other constraints at work in choosing interfaces and aesthetics at a company. Among other things to consider Apple seem to be trying to streamline their iOS and desktop interfaces and looks and they do have some toothing problems doing so, to say the least.
I’d be happy if you would like to commit yet more time to this subject and considered my contribution: http://blog.jochmann.me/post/12490275509/skeuomorphism-design-thinking-apple
To me it’s just about making something gorgeous. In UX design, 90% is about interaction, usability, and this is constantly in flux and constantly being refined – especially on iOS.
The other 10% are aesthetics and this is where the skeu comes in. Whether or not you agree with the aesthetics – and I very much do, for the most part, I like gorgeous things – it’s just 10% of the UX design.
That’s where many other, lesser user interface builders go wrong: They make something look “cute” but do it in a tasteless way. Or do it in a way where it gets in the way of usability. Or stick to a metaphor even if it doesn’t work very well (Microsoft Bob does all these things). All this is bad UX design, whether it’s pretty or not.
Concluding argument: I like pretty things. And I think the exuberant textures and over the top lick-ability of Apple’s design actually contrasts very well with the minimalist exterior. Apple wants the hardware to disappear in iOS – you are not using a tablet to surf the web – you’re using the web, directly. Same for all other apps. And then, a very photographic design makes perfect sense.
Trackbacks