Agreed, people are already complaining off of speculation that literally has NO evidence at ALL.
Flat design is tasteless and doesn't require much creativity or effort on part of the designer.
Everything will look more shoddy.![]()
Here's a great blog posting about iOS not going completely flat.
https://medium.com/thoughts-and-wor...=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+uarrrblog+(UARRR.org)
And a good example of what an app looks like when it loses its gloss.
![]()
It will be intersting to see if Apple's changes are more radical or are simply getting rid of the gloss and unnecessary textures/gradients.
According to who?
As always, I'm confused. How can anybody, like, dislike, hate, love or otherwise hold any opinion about something that no one has ever seen!??
Just asking...![]()
That letterpress app icon is exactly what Apple are being reported to move away from, its fake analog and has become very outdated.
Flat design takes away all the unnecessary effects and gloss and isn't made to look like analog, like a lot of the fake calendars/clocks Apple does.
Here's an example from Google of flat design, there are no drop shadows or unnecessary effects, its all made in block colours:
[url=http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h93/joe8979/ScreenShot2013-05-05at124309_zpsc9b8d815.png]Image[/URL]
[url=http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h93/joe8979/ScreenShot2013-05-05at124520_zpsc005596c.png]Image[/URL]
The Apple icons look light years better than those disgusting kindergarten tiles.
Sick of people complaining about "flat design!"
"Sick of people complaining about people complaining about flat design."
lulz
As a hobbyist designer, I can tell you that I like Google's flat UI very much, and I believe an Apple's version of that design would look beautiful.
So I'm looking forward to iOS 7 with confidence in Ive.
Can someone explain why glossy is good? All these apps with the glossy effect seem so dated compared to their non glossy counterpart. The letterpress app icon os an example of losing the ugly bits of iOS but not going completely flat. The icon has a textured background and has an element of 3D, but it still looks great and not cartoonish. And no glossy lacquer over it.
It's a nice idea, but the problem with vectors is that they're not very performance oriented, and the CPU/GPU having to redraw them all the time would likely take a toll on the battery. By how much, I'm not sure. Probably not that much in the grand scheme of things. But in a mobile environment, everything has to be as efficient as possible, and vectors do draw more power than bitmaps.
It's usually much more efficient just to make your icons and UI elements a decently large bitmap, and downscale them to the size you need them to be on the UI. As long as you're scaling down by powers of 2, and don't go too extreme with the resolution (like use a 2048x icon that's gonna be as large as a fingertip onscreen), you can make a good looking, resolution independent UI without falling back on vectors.
Flat design is tasteless and doesn't require much creativity or effort on part of the designer.
Everything will look more shoddy.![]()
I think people get used to thinking of it as 3D-like. They emulate very specific things. In all of the examples you posted including later ones in the thread, the implied lighting is the same. It's a round light source in front of the icon slightly high up while aimed downward. The colimated reflections are indicative of a coated surface like you mentioned or just a non - metallic object with a very smooth surface, basically any level of faceting would have to be small enough that its impact on reflections could not be perceived when viewing. The letterpress is more about a different surface material than more or less volume. It has slight bumps. The edge of the phone has a slight bevel and a drop shadow like it's sitting slightly off the background along the edges. Completely flat to me would be like if they went to solid colors, removing the implication of a lit object. Gradients can be that way too, but right now they're following an extremely specific lighting model across all of those icons. I don't know that they'll go that way. I think people get too hung up on these things.
Of these two app examples which do you prefer? To me the first one looks more dated almost like a house that has brassy hardware everywhere. Some would argue the first is better because it makes the buttons look clickable/tapable. But I don't think it's hard to figure out what to tap in the second example.
Jony Ive has said he doesn't like it when designers are wagging their tail in his face. To me that's what the first example does, as do many of the skeuomorphic designs in iOS. It's as if the designers want to show you how good they are at graphic design. I actually find it a bit patronizing. These days most people are familiar with touch devices and know how to use them. I don't need an element designed like a physical button on a remote to know I can click on it.I like the second one. You're likely to see it change back and forth. It's really more stylistic than anything, but the first was probably helpful in the infancy of mass market touchscreen devices. The sense of depth arguably provided communication that is no longer needed as people have become acclimatized to that method of interaction. They make it very obvious at first, then tone it down as strong visual cues are no longer needed by a fair number of users. I'm personally a fan of subdued design work. I haven't researched it in depth, and I'm not really an expert on graphic design. Some of these things just seem apparent when looking through various icons Apple has used. Things like the implied lighting model I mentioned are extremely consistent.
Just looking at the twitter logos a bit longer, I'd add that part of the reason I strongly prefer the second there is that implied lighting and dimension don't add much to the first. It's more of an occlusion effect that anything in that you have slightly beveled highlights on lit edges and shadowed crevices. I don't find that terribly interesting. The second is plain, but displayed on a phone I would still know it was an icon for twitter without the words there, and telling people touch here starts to become patronizing when practically everyone owns a smartphone.
Jony Ive has said he doesn't like it when designers are wagging their tail in his face. To me that's what the first example does, as do many of the skeuomorphic designs in iOS. It's as if the designers want to show you how good they are at graphic design. I actually find it a bit patronizing. These days most people are familiar with touch devices and know how to use them. I don't need an element designed like a physical button on a remote to know I can click on it.
when did apple ever say "ya johny I've has been making iOS a more flat looking interface."???? how can you hate iOS 7 when we have no idea of what it will be like until june??? thats my daily rant.![]()