Modern minimalist flat UI vs Skeuomorpism UI

• Oct 24, 2021 - 00:19

I like what I saw in the nightly version of Musescore 4 but I don't understand why people feel the need to make the UI so flat and uninteresting, the UI in Musescore 3.6.2 is so much more interesting, why do people these days think that a UI with skeuomorphism (beveled or slightly raised icons and elements) is so evil that they must flatten everything, its like an obsession that I see done with many apps and software. The flat minimalist look is getting really tired and boring looking. If I was a programmer I would build software with the skeuomorphism look just to go against the grain of the popular modern minimalist flat look. I think the minimalist flat look was inspired by the "Smart" (Dumb) phone. I just call it that because the smart phone has turned people into dummies, people don't even know how to make a phone call anymore and young people don't know how to socialize these days because of texting on the dumb phone and look at people driving and texting, how dumb and mindless is that?! If I sound grouchy it is because I'm tired of this mindless push to "modernize" everything, even websites ore flat and boring these days, its so sad that the smartphone dictates UI design, website design and many other things today.


Comments

dmusicman wrote > I like what I saw in the nightly version of Musescore 4 but I don't understand why people feel the need to make the UI so flat and uninteresting, the UI in Musescore 3.6.2 is so much more interesting, why do people these days think that a UI with skeuomorphism (beveled or slightly raised icons and elements) is so evil that they must flatten everything? The flat minimalist look is getting really tired and boring looking.

+1

As a parallel:

Recently—across so many apps—we see UI design obsession with dark mode, which can be really hard on the eyes.

• Fortunately most apps (including MuseScore 3.6.2) offer users the choice between regular (light mode) and dark mode.

• Similarly I'd like to see a MuseScore 4 option to toggle between non-flat mode (slightly raised 3D icons, beveled edges or elements, gradients and reflections) and flat mode which eliminates many of those graphical realistic subtleties.

Does MuseScore v4 offer the choice between flat mode and non-flat mode?

+1
It's a personal opinion of course,
but I think the spirit of Musescore is lost.
Now (in 4.x nightlies) it looks more like a cold hospital room or an operating room rather than a welcoming warm home.
And interestingly, while it should look richer and more attractive, it looks like a feature-restricted software compared to 3.x.

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

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

In reply to by scorster

Frankly, my initial thought when I saw earlier builds of MU4 (which is what it's usually being referred to internally) was that these were probably just "placeholder" icons. But I've grown more used to seeing them, and they've been refined some as well well.

One thing I do appreciate about the MU4 design is that the UI elements are more "lightweight" and not as distracting when I'm using MuseScore in demonstrations. Or during score entry & editing, for that matter - the focus is more clearly on the music itself.

Anyhow, feature-wise, there shouldn't be anything missing - well, nothing visible from the main UI anyhow (as reported elsewhere, apparently Zerberus won't be included). So, if it looks like fewer features even though it's not, that's actually a win for new users - less overwhelming.

FWIW, that's not actually what skeuomorphism means. It 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. The current MuseScore 4 icons are still skeuomorphic, they just aren't 3D. 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.

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.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

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.

In reply to by SketalDaz

I don't think that a bevelled UI gets in the way at all of accessing data in "this day and age". It seems to be more a matter of current fashion and I wouldn't be surprised to see it change again in 10 years time.

The clarity of the UI is in the hands of the developer and it's just as easy to make a distracting UI in flatland, (e.g. Microsoft PowerApps), as it is in bevelled land. The rapid change of data and level of detail can be handled well in either style of UI

I think that the new look says, "I'm an up-to-date modern app", and that we will soon stop noticing it and just get on with enjoying MS4.

In reply to by yonah_ag

I personally don't have issues with a thick bevelled UI, but some people do because they see it is a waste of space and want to be able to see more content all at once. I don't even have issues with windows 7's UI -- with its detail 3D icons, but I can see someone finding them very distracting mainly because they never encounter these items (see image below) in real life. I recently heard from a podcast that there are students majoring in computer science / computer programming and never knew what a filing system is because they never had the need to work with a filing cabinet in their lives. There, too, are artists who never used a paint brush before because most of their workflow is done digitally. A UI designer / developer has to take these things in consideration because their main job isn't to make something look pretty (or to follow a trend); their main job is to establish identification and associates that are convenient for users to navigate through when interacting with contents. It should be noted, too, that human behavior and how people associate things to the real world had always change through time, whether through culture practice or in heritage, so a change in UI style in 10 years time is inevitable.

Windows-7-start.png

Side Note: I knew saying "this day and age" would caused someone to automatically associate my reasoning to a negative connotation and make it seem as though I'm trying to glorify or romanticize the modern look; I thought about editing it before publishing the post, but now I'm kind of glad I didn't. Sip

In reply to by SketalDaz

I didn't take "this day and age" as a negative; rather, I totally agree. This day and age has gone data crazy.

I'm working on digitalisation projects at a factory and there is a wide diversity and huge amount of data. From typical sales and HR data we now have data streaming second-by-second from factory machines into SQL databases and this needs to be brought into visualisations for humans to get a handle on it.

I just think that UI style is more of a fashion thing than a functional one. A good UI can be written in either style – as can a poor one – and I don't think that today's data requirements really affect bevelled vs. flat.

Maybe the UI style in 10 years time will be neither bevelled nor flat but something completely different.

In reply to by SketalDaz

There is also the opposite: An art museum has been established for plugins that would take ten lines if they were listed as normal.

art_museum-01.png

As we understand from this exhibition:
Color notes: you have to wait for long hours looking at the sky and smoking.
Create score: It must be very difficult. Because the books are overturned, there is a warning sign and the person has difficulty even standing.
HelloQml: I think it contains some of Van Gogh's problems.
ABC import: There's a bird, there's the sun, something like a boomerang or a paper-plane in the air. It could be a Picasso reference.

In reply to by SketalDaz

Personally, I prefer a UI that is clear, organized and usable. Whether it looks futuristic or out of the 1800's. It would be nice to not have to drill deeply into menus to find what I want. Or wondering if a certain routine is part of a right-click, or in a menu or tool bar. Sure, it's all part of learning the software. But still.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

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?"

      Rotary phone icon with MuseScore icon.png

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

I don't mind the minimalism of the new design. Dark mode looks better in the new UI--less cluttered. Playing around with the appearance options, I am able to get an UI that's fairly easy on the eyes. Are people actually using Musescore 4 nightly builds for scoring? In other words, is it usable?

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.