Thread: Windows 7 Touch UI

^^^ I totally agree with that. I think this thing of trying to mimic real object is way overplayed. Digital should remain digital.

This reminded me of this article on the upcoming Windows Phone 7 :

One of the more recent trends in UI design has been the attempt to make the digital appear analog. It arguably started with the NeXT OS, which had photorealistic icons and used clever grayscale techniques to give three-dimensional depth to windows, scroll bars and other elements. Today, Apple's iPhone compass app looks like it might be more at home on an 18th-century clipper ship, and the voice recorder app looks at home in a recording studio somewhere around 1950 -- tap on the "microphone" and the VU meter will react much as it would in real life. Google's added subtle 3D effects to Android's app scrolling. I haven't thought that much about this trend until I recently spent some time using Windows Phone 7.

It's perhaps a minor issue but one of the things I like about WP7 is that it's not a digital UI pretending to be analog. The user interface is flat. There are no photorealistic depictions of real world items, no shading, and no 3D effects. Everything is conveyed through the use of fonts, shapes and color. It's digital and it's proud. Overall, I like it, and the more I use it, the more I prefer it.

(Endgadget)


Look at the picture above and not the absence of fake buttons, or 3D icons or shades.

Same look happens on Windows Media Center. No fake buttons either, you click on the words: Media, Movies, Recorded TV, etc. No square frame delimiting anything. You don't need to really. Even in a touchscreen.

One of the things I don't like in all the front ends I've seen to date is this. You have to draw a square or circle for every single function. Even if it's just for displaying the freaking date or time, there a little square frame around it. Most if not all front ends suffer from this "buttonitiis", they populate the screen with buttons and think it's cool.

My first front end should be something like that above and/ore like windows media center combination. Ideally a scrolling digital paper like that with no buttons would work for me.

I think the above image is way cooler than if it were populated with small icons and buttons and squares with shadow effects.

Did apple design the compass app?
They have 3D analogies in the UI for handling objects like lists, but I don't find in general they're trying to mimic an old way of doing things. Pulling a screen from left to right isn't analog or digital. It's just a quick and easy way to see what's logically off to the right.
I try to move stuff around in centrafuse all the time. Doesn't work.

Yes, the compass with the mahogany theme is a stock app and came from Apple, as did the 50's analog mic.

Pulling a screen from left to right, where did the author (or me) mentioned that? That's exactly like you navigate on the WinPhone 7, as far as I understand?

Moving around things is cool, I agree, but I don't a good example of replicating the analog world? If anything it's neutral?

If you have an iPhone, look at the icon shades for the 3D effects, the bottom bar with the shelf like theme, etc. I think that was the point.

I particularly dislike when a button or frame has glare added to it. I mean, it's electronic and they add in the glare!

I don't deny that the 3D look is eye catching at first. But over time, I prefer the flat digital look, or better yet, a smoother digital only format. Simpler is better and can be even more attractive than simulated 3D

I like the look of that Windows Phone interface but word must not have gotten back to the folks that designed the aero theme just yet :-)

I agree...fake glare is tough to bear. I loved the brilliant 3D icons and stuff at first, but I think flat is cooler.

By Aero, you mean Vista aero? Because Win7 is very different. I can see my menu bar has only text, no buttons or any 3D effect. Same think with my link bar (firefox 3.6), it has no frame or anything, just the website icon and text. The start menu smbol, the bar, they're all flat, liquid metallic paper style, it's the best way I can describe it.

If you at the Suavecito skins, most of the elements are flat, and look more "digital" than most.



And this:



Look at the frameless elements at the bottom bar and the flat buttons all over the main screen. No shades, spotlights or any 3D effects, at least not until you click something (there's some 3D elements built in RR I think, but maybe you can just use color change if one wants to).

One of the best looking skins, IMHO.

OTOH...

fake shutter and film sounds on digital cameras is also quite funny.

Originally Posted by tripzero

fake shutter and film sounds on digital cameras is also quite funny.

Yes, but that's really for catching people taking pictures of things they shouldn't.

It does become quite irritating when I'm trying to record the cover of a book in the library to look it up later. I guess I should change the sound to a discreet cough or something.

Originally Posted by Penzance

Yes, but that's really for catching people taking pictures of things they shouldn't.

It does become quite irritating when I'm trying to record the cover of a book in the library to look it up later. I guess I should change the sound to a discreet cough or something.

oh really? I always thought that it had become an expectation for cameras to sound that way. When digital cameras came out, I imagine people didn't think it was taking pictures because it didn't make any sound.

On my cannon, it allowed the sound to be themed. I changed it to the sound of a cow moo. It was lots of fun.

It's actually the law in some countries for camera phones (at least) to make noise.

I don't think it has to be a shutter sound, but everyone knows what that sounds like, so they know what's happening. This is as opposed to some odd beep, that nowadays could be made by anything electronic...

That is ultimately part of this whole discussion - by mimicking real world objects and how they operate, people feel more comfortable with and can relate to interfaces. You can only move away from a person's "model of the world" so far before they cannot understand what's going on.