| The experiment was not 'flat' vs 'not-flat'. It is weak-signifiers vs strong-signifiers. They have a hypothesis that states that users will be able to accomplish their task with less effort given strong signifiers. They tested the hypothesis with two versions of the same page: one with weak signifiers and the other with strong signifiers. Both versions were created to _test_ the hypothesis. To either confirm or disprove the hypothesis. They measured user eye movement activity and produced heat maps. The heat maps confirm their hypothesis. With weak signifiers the users spent more time searching for the elements they wanted. How is this not scientific? Like all good science the conclusion is not 'flat bad, skewmorphism good.' No, it says whatever you are doing ensure you provide users with signifiers. So the final result is not a false dichotomy of flat vs non-flat but a useful set of guidelines: "Early pseudo-3D GUIs and Steve-Jobs-esque skeuomorphism often produced heavy, clunky interfaces. Scaling back from those excesses is good for usability. But removing visual distinctions to produce fully flat designs with no signifiers can be an equally bad extreme." |
> The experiment was not 'flat' vs 'not-flat'.
> It is weak-signifiers vs strong-signifiers.
I agree completely.
The title of the article is "Flat UI Elements Attract Less Attention and Cause Uncertainty".
Read a few of the comments here and you'll quickly see how the article is being misinterpreted.