Modern minimalist flat UI vs Skeuomorpism UI

Ziya Mete Demircan wrote ...while [MuseScore 4] should look richer and more attractive, it looks like a feature-restricted software compared to 3.x.

Good point. High quality 3D design often looks more natural and warmer. Plus users intuitively know that 3D bevels, gradients, shadows and reflections take longer to design thus, as you say, a unattractive flat design may suggest of a lower level development quality and a dearth of feature abundance. But "software natives" have now grown up with flat designs so they likey expect that, and to them realism may look old fashioned.

Personally I will miss the 3D. ...and expect it will eventually return to some extent. Hopefully a balanced approach will produce a design that's operative on small devices yet attractive, discoverable and easy on the eyes.

scorster

I don't consider myself an expert, but I want to add my perspective to what Marc said. It shouldn't be assumed that the modern UI was created just to be different from the old ways; it has a purpose. In this day and age, information, data, and features are created much more rapidly and in greater detail, so a simpler UI is needed to help users conveniently sort through these contents without much interruption from the UI itself. That being said, though, the goal of delivering a great graphical experience to the user is still a priority.

Marc wrote > >.... skeuomorphism ... has nothing really to do with whether icons have raised edges or not, it's whether the icons are designed to look like real-world objects at all. So, an icon of a printer is skeuomorphic whether it looks 3D or not. But it's also true that sometimes the term is used to differentiate "more realistic" looks icons from more "stylized" ones, and to some extent, 3D touches can be part of that.

Thanks Marc! You've nicely defined the skeuomorphism and outlined the common confusion between flat and 3D skeuomorphism, which errantly argues that flat is not skeuomorphic.

> The current MuseScore 4 icons are still skeuomorphic, they just aren't 3D.

The effort toward realism and 3D can provide a familiar and attractive interface, but often this is at a price of larger controls and object displays, which is surely partly why flat design grew "popular" in the rise of smaller mobile devices.

> Anyhow, I'm more accustomed to the old-school 90's-style 3D look too, so I definitely hear you in still not being so comfortable with the more modern flatter look.

> Still, it definitely seems to be the way most software design has been going, so I assume I'll get used to it here as I have elsewhere. I kind of doubt there is any good research as to which is objectively "better" - or if there is, I'd expect it favors the flatter look and that's why it has been so popular.

>Much as it's not my own personal choice, it's hard to argue that it's good for any program to remain stuck in a model that is out of touch with most of its users. And there are way more people accustomed to modern interfaces than to 90's-style ones.

Yes. Imagine the confusion a young person (with only keypad dialing experience) when confronted with a rotary phone control—additionally, rotary interactions have rarely been ideal onscreen. And the rise of "iconic" anacronisms is rapidly increasing. Soon kids will ask, "Why do they call it clockwise and counter clockwise?"

That said, sometimes there's nothing better than an old fashioned analog dial.

I remember when stereo amplifiers rushed to a "cool, modern, minimalistic, flat, digital design with + and - buttons for volume, treble, bass, etc. At that time I found myself wanting a new amplifier but knew this pointless fad would eventually go away ... unfortunately the design's demise took about 12 years. And I was willing and able to wait it out.

Since we rounded that corner and today, virtually all amplifiers have analog dials—because a single rotary control works far better than two digital ones. Generally speaking microwaves and air friers have yet to catch up with employment of analog dials. And in that case, for optimal best accuracy, the knob should control a numerically displayed value because many appliance complaints cite inaccurate knobs, which occurs when a knob indicator merely points to a temperature setting like 350° but due to poor calibration, or play in the knob, the actual temperature may differ by a significant number of degrees.

I doubt that MuseScore 4's interface will ignite any kitchen fires, but it would be nice if its design leans toward attractive, meaningful clarity, even with a touch of warmth and ignites a new era of MuseScore advancement, appreciation and adoption.

scorster

> "Are people actually using Musescore 4 nightly builds for scoring? In other words, is it usable?"
If they are they should be prepared to throw out and lose all their work at any given moment. MS4 isn't even in the Alpha stage yet.