Comment by ricokatayama
7 days ago
When Apple introduced the whole skeuomorphic analogy, they did it because they needed to make a new way of interacting with touch-based apps feel tangible. That seemed totally fair.
When Apple brought a spatial analogy to the Vision Pro, it also felt fair they were thinking in terms of volume and dimensions, after all, they were teaching people how to interact with a new reality.
I can even understand Apple wanting to unify their design approaches, but bringing the “liquid glass” look to everything feels like a massive step backward. The interface looks messy, clunky.
It feels like Apple is entering a design hell, and I don’t know how they’ll get out of it.
> When Apple introduced the whole skeuomorphic analogy, they did it because they needed to make a new way of interacting with touch-based apps feel tangible.
Skeuomorphism was on the Apple Lisa in 1983, and they didn't invent it. Apple's first touch device wasn't until ten years later in 1993 in the Newton MessagePad. The MessagePad didn't really have "apps," that wasn't until like 2008 when it was added to the iPhone, but now we're twenty-five years after Apple's first usage of Skeuomorphism. The Xerox Star was in 1981 and had Skeuomorphic elements.
So I'm not really following what you're trying to say in that sentance.
You are right, I believe skeuomorphism was basically the first approach for graphical user interfaces when they came out. The "save" icon being a floppy disk has been around for literal decades.
I can be argued that the Xerox Alto (1973) had skeuomorphic elements to it's GUI.
You're comparing multi-touch technology to the experience of the MessagePad? Also, do you know a bunch of people who were big Xerox Starheads? It doesn't count if you don't have mass adoption.
Likewise, I'm not really following what you're trying to say in that sentence.
> You're comparing multi-touch technology to the experience of the MessagePad?
Nobody mentioned multi-touch at all. We're talking about Apple's first usage of skeuomorphic UI design, and or their first usage on a touch device in particular.
> Also, do you know a bunch of people who were big Xerox Starheads? It doesn't count if you don't have mass adoption.
I genuinely don't understand what you're responding to or trying to say. I'm not following the relevance nor what you mean by "count" (or not-count).
I feel like you're trying to have a conversation about something else, but I'm really not sure what or what it is you thought you read.
It's probably to train the users for augmented reality UI. We will probably all see some kind of floating transparent user interface over a camera background. That the "liquid" transparency is dynamic and can change depending on the thing underneath and the thing being shown seems to directly point to this.
It does indeed feel like a step backward - I was also weirdly reminded of the Forstall skeuomorphism era of UIs.
The video says: "It beautifully refracts light, and dynamically reacts to your movement, with specular highlights"; ugh, why? Why add dynamic==distracting high-frequency details that supply zero information?
The recent super flat UI aesthetic bugged me for awhile for its apparent lack of affordances, but when used consistently it made sense. Now it seems we still get zero affordances, but also visual noise.
> It feels like Apple is entering a design hell, and I don’t know how they’ll get out of it.
Improvement is always only a single update away! Potentially..
I’m all for a new design esthetic, even if they have to iterate it a few times to improve usability.
> Apple introduced the whole skeuomorphic analogy
IBM was doing it 10 years earlier.