Curator of Mastodon.art fediblock :newt: on Nostr: m0xEE lait accompli > The gradients are highly relevant because that is how you add ...
m0xEE (nprofile…9a3k) lait accompli (nprofile…zqaw)
> The gradients are highly relevant because that is how you add depth and achieve the "pseudo 3d" effect. In earlier Windows buttons do not use gradients for one good reason — that UI was designed when your average computer could display 16 colours at best, they didn't have the luxury to use gradients. Since then no one touched that for quite some time.
This might be true. I'm not sure "ugliness" is a measurable metric though, but I digress.
>Look at specimens 2 and 3 — this is Finder in 10.6 and 10.7, look at the sidebar. Notice something? The colours are gone, you can't rely on that anymore — you have to actually read into captions.
Makes sense.
>Ergo, "flat" interfaces are cool and unlike the blast from the 80s made with 16 colours or less in mind, they look modern.
I've no idea what "modern" is. More colours? Sure, but that's not modernity, 24 bit colour was available in the 90s.
>"Flat design" failed not because people want "lickable buttons" or have trouble finding them if they don't look like the ones on their keyboard
Not, this is wrong. As I claimed earlier, flat interfaces are objectively worse because control elements and content look about the same and it takes more effort to tell them apart.
Sure, one could use all the spectrum of DCI-P3 or sRGB to colour-code different UI elements, but this starts to look more like noise. Subtlety is important here.
> The gradients are highly relevant because that is how you add depth and achieve the "pseudo 3d" effect. In earlier Windows buttons do not use gradients for one good reason — that UI was designed when your average computer could display 16 colours at best, they didn't have the luxury to use gradients. Since then no one touched that for quite some time.
This might be true. I'm not sure "ugliness" is a measurable metric though, but I digress.
>Look at specimens 2 and 3 — this is Finder in 10.6 and 10.7, look at the sidebar. Notice something? The colours are gone, you can't rely on that anymore — you have to actually read into captions.
Makes sense.
>Ergo, "flat" interfaces are cool and unlike the blast from the 80s made with 16 colours or less in mind, they look modern.
I've no idea what "modern" is. More colours? Sure, but that's not modernity, 24 bit colour was available in the 90s.
>"Flat design" failed not because people want "lickable buttons" or have trouble finding them if they don't look like the ones on their keyboard
Not, this is wrong. As I claimed earlier, flat interfaces are objectively worse because control elements and content look about the same and it takes more effort to tell them apart.
Sure, one could use all the spectrum of DCI-P3 or sRGB to colour-code different UI elements, but this starts to look more like noise. Subtlety is important here.