To end the dispute of materialization and flattening!

China, which is beset by various social problems, has also aroused the opinion of various "doctrine" in academic circles. In view of these doctrines, Hu Shih expounded his attitude ———— the great danger of public opinion now is to bias the theory of paper, not to go to the field to investigate what the social needs of China today ... Some kind of society, to some time, by some kind of influence, presents some dissatisfied status quo. So some conscientious, with this phenomenon, come up with some kind of relief.

This is the origin of "doctrine". At the beginning of the doctrine, most of them are a specific proposition of salvation. Later this claim spread out, the spread of people yaotu simple, using one or two words to represent this specific proposition, so called him to do "so-and-so".

Advocates become a doctrine, then by the concrete plan, into an abstract noun. ... the great danger of "doctrine" is that it can make people satisfied and think of the "fundamental solution" of all the ills of medicine, and then it is unnecessary to study the solution of the specific problem.

This move out of these words, is to throw jade brick, borrow truth to whitewash humble opinion, talk about the current product and design industry in the "problem" and "doctrine."

　　Parody VS. Flattening?

As we all know, the controversy over "skeuomorphic" and "flat (flattened)" has not been intermittent since Microsoft created the Metro in the beginning. The issue, after the June 11 Apple released IOS7, is pushed to a new climax. As for the details of the case here will no longer repeat, reader can be random Google.

The crux of this problem lies in the opposition between the public and the industry in the eyes of the so-called "skeuomorphic" and "Flat (flattened)". "Parody" and "Flat" Kosai, stalemate, Conquest unceasingly. And spread to the real work, often can see many product managers or designers will be "materialized" and "flat" on the tip of the mouth-"This is a peace, no texture, not high", "This is the trend, now the pursuit of flat." Confucius said: "The attack on heresy, the harm has also been", for the end is to adhere to the parody, or to follow the flat doctrine? The following is a rash talk, for reader a smile.

First of all, please judge, which design in the following picture is skeuomorphic design? Which is the flat flat design?

The answer seems to be self-evident--the left picture is the skeuomorphic design, the right picture is the flat flat design.

But is that really the case? The question is a trap, and the answer is inaccurate. Because, two design is skeuomorphic design, and only the right picture is flat flat design. Why do you say that?

First, let's look at the concept of skeuomorphic design.

--skeuomorph is a decorative means or design technique used to reproduce the form of objects made from other materials or methods on an object. For example, a decorative metal rivet shape is added to the pottery handle, making the raw material a clay-like vessel appear to be made of metal. This process can be represented by the following figure:

Among them, F not only refers to the narrow sense of the appearance of style, more refers to the layout, manner, genre and so on.

Looking back at the example above, you will find that both pictures are the imitation of the real clocks, and that there is no way out of the realistic frame to devise a new form of timing. The difference is that the right image does not use additional special effects such as gradients, highlights, and the left is only a step closer to the real-world simulation than the right image. It can be seen that in general, the focus of the debate on skeuomorphic and flat is not out of the ordinary, but more simply in the visual aspect of the effects of the treatment of the superior and inferior.

This kind of argument, often put both simply rudely put the opposite, but ignored the skeuomorphic and flat the focus of the problem-vision is to serve the product, whether the use of skeuomorphic or flat, this issue should be at the product level to consider. I liken this choice to the choice of fishing nets and fishing lines, and the people who use the nets accuse them of simply being single, and those who use the fishing line accuse them of the complexity of the nets, but ignore the purpose, the use of the scene and the differences between the users.

Therefore, before doing the design, we must first clear the positioning of the product, do a targeted design, with the design to solve the real problem, rather than just stay on the surface to debate the quality of style, the pros and cons.

So, what is a targeted design?

Designed to solve problems

Before discussing the above question, let's look at an example

The alternative is to move robots in lieu of workers to complete heavy weights.

Although the humanoid robot looks cool, scientific and impersonal, is it a good design? Equating design works with realistic simulations is a superficial and resource-intensive task. A more flat and efficient solution can be obtained if practical problems are addressed in a realistic way.

So does that mean that the flat design solution for the robot is correct? Look at the picture below.

Obviously, every design style has its limitations. When the purpose is not the same, the applicable design solutions are different, and it is not possible to assume that one style is superior to another. In the targeted design, the design to solve the problem is the most important, as to the use of the visual language, should first depend on the product to achieve the purpose, rather than the current popular design style. Take IOS6 and IOS7 's "return" as an example--

IOS6 's return is visually more like a "push" button, illustrating the return operation area by using shadows, high light, and gradients closer to the real-world worldview, giving people a visual impression that can be touched.

The advantage of this design is that it reduces the learning cost of the user by means of a parody with a strong operational hint (local range point touch) and directional cues (arrow styling and text wrapped by arrows), and improves the user's accuracy in the operation of the results.

This design is very valuable in those years when the iphone has not yet become an arcade, a friendly gesture that enables users with any level of awareness to get started quickly, and to help develop the iOS user community. IOS7 's return, through the flat processing, in the visual out of the "press" this action metaphor, and mainly emphasizes a more integrated with the whole screen sense of direction. This change is not just a change in the overall design style, but more to be interpreted as an evolution that adapts to the status of the product-

1, from the ordinary screen to the retina screen upgrade, so that the original materialized design needs to occupy more system resources. The enlargement of the screen means that the size of the slice is increased, and the increase of the size of the slice is bound to lead to the growth of the system space. And in a specific size, the need for a large number of visual details of the physical and chemical design will use more color, so that the amount of Chettu data increased exponentially.

The impact of this on screen size differentiation is extremely serious. However, because the flat design of the details of the use of more restrained, can better solve the problem at different resolutions, without the need to consume too much resources (including system resources and human resources). As the results of the following figure simulate, the amount of data in the IOS6 button Chettu multiplies in three sizes, while the iOS7 button Chettu does not increase the amount of data.

2, from the 3.5-inch screen to the 4-inch screen upgrade, so that the finger to complete the screen in the upper left corner of the path required for the operation of growth. At the same time, in the design of the return button of the iOS6, the actual point-touch response area is larger than the visual-restricted area, and the finger can trigger the returned action even if it does not touch the Visual button area accurately.

Combined with these two points of view, obviously on the big screen, there is a clear touch range of the point of contact style is no longer an ideal visual presentation, too much emphasis on the accuracy of the contact area to a certain extent to increase the user's psychological fatigue. Conversely, the return of iOS7 avoids this problem, and the fuzzy processing of the point-contact region releases the user's operating pressure to some extent.

3, iOS7 to gesture operation and head induction operation support, can let return operation no longer like iOS6 can only rely on the touch action. This makes the button style that emphasizes touch behavior lose its value, instead it is a more pure flat design in the sense of direction.

It can be seen that IOS7 's "return" is not because of the need to abandon the parody to become the present, but to use this more flat design techniques to effectively solve the product's practical problems.

This can be corroborated by a passage that Jonathan Ive has said:

If we ' re thinking about a lunchbox, we'll be really careful about don't have the word box already, to give you a bunch of I Deas that could is quite narrow.

Because you are a box as being square and like a cube.

So we ' re quite careful with the words this, because those can be narrow and can determine the path of your go Dow N.

The idea is: if you want to design a lunchbox, you'd better put the word "box" aside, because the word "box" will determine your next thought, limiting your imagination to some kind of cube shape.

(Note: A box is a square or rectangular container with hard or stiff sides.)

Therefore, in the design of the time, to first vent their own understanding of things, and then fundamentally consider the most suitable form of design. This is a design method that starts from the original purpose of the design, abandons all external influences, and gives the solution to the product itself.

Now look at the previous question, what is the targeted design?

The targeted design is--put aside whether it is a parody or a flat or a "xx" interference, for the problems encountered in the product to provide the most appropriate design solutions. Those who, in order to carry out the concept of pseudo-materialism or to follow the trend of flattening, forced the visual product to be materialized or flattened, even at the expense of the product experience at the expense of superficial practices, can be Hugh.

　　Four dimensions of measurement

Empty talk Languo, even if there is a reason for the abuse of the words will become a hollow of the XX doctrine. After the "parody vs. flattening" is a pseudo proposition, it has to go back to the real question-how do you determine whether the product is suitable for a more realistic design when designing for a product, or is it suitable for a more flat design? I usually use it based on the existence of the environment, my own value, User relations and evolutionary trends, such as four dimensions to make a simple judgment of the product, the initial determination of the applicable design style.

　　Adaptability : Does your product need consistent presentation on multiple platforms?

　　Presentation : Does your product show up as a large chunk of information content?

　　ease of use: Does your product have an understandable operational metaphor (including hints of hierarchy and interaction)?

　　Trends : Does your product depend on popular culture? For answers to the above four dimensions, if yes, then prefer a more flat design option. However, any measure is inflexible, and the intuition and judgment based on a great deal of experience are more trustworthy in carrying out specific design tasks.

In short, more research on the real problem of products, to find the best visual solutions to the reality of the product, rather than the interference of So-and-so, in order to meet the so-called trend of the impact of the product experience-this is the hallowed be thy product designers on the real value of the product.