Flat UI isn't some massive new UI paradigm? I thought that's exactly what it is.
> ... it's effectively a theme!
One of the major components of the success and pleasantness of iOS -- and Mac OS X before it -- has been platform consistency.
Apple has made a study of this, and that's part of what users are buying when they buy Apple's products. Dismantling that consistency (rather than, say, building on it) is detrimental to your user's experience and the cumulative value of both the user's purchase and training, as well as other developer's investment in furthering the platform.
There certainly can be a fine line between building on the platform standards and dismantling them, but rewriting all UI components is very much on the side of "dismantling".
>Flat UI isn't some massive new UI paradigm? I thought that's exactly what it is.
Then you were wrong.
Flat UI is merely a graphic design choice. If affects the look and overall design of the user interface (flat colors, no drop shadows, remove frills, etc).
Everything you otherwise know about the UI and how it works remains the same. Buttons are still buttons, text entry boxes behave as before, radio buttons still let you choose one option, sliders slide, etc etc. You can have a flat UI in Gnome, say, just buy changing the GTK theme to use a flat UI design. Nothing "massive new UI paradigm" about it.
CLI to GUI is a "massive new UI paradigm". GUI to Touch GUI is a "massive new UI paradigm". 3D (if somebody implements it in any way that makes sense) would be a "massive new UI paradigm".
Flat UI is merely a theme change -- plus the adoption of a less ornamental design sensibility. The apps still behave and interact the same. You just don't get corinthian lever, faux-wood bookshelves and old Braun tape machines.
>There certainly can be a fine line between building on the platform standards and dismantling them, but rewriting all UI components is very much on the side of "dismantling".
Like Apple Pro apps vs regular Apple OS X apps, right? Since they do have ALL the UI components changed. Or like iBooks vs standard iOS look. And tons of other cases where Apple did the same.
>Buttons are still buttons, text entry boxes behave as before, radio buttons still let you choose one option, sliders slide, etc etc.
They might be, if I can figure out which flat rectangle out of the dozens presented to me is a button or a dropdown or whatever. Say what you will about minimalism and removing unnecessary ornaments, but it is NOT cool to remove visual cues for interaction.
At least the buttons here have shadows underneath that give some sense of depth. But at this rate, we'll be throwing decades worth of UX design out with the bathwater if designers blindly follow <graphic-design-trend-of-the-year>.
None of the top apps look like this, because this is a new app, and the theme has just been released.
But you didn't rant against THIS specific theme and how it looks. You ranted against theming iOS, period. You said it's a disservice to the users, users don't like it, etc.
So, answer me and the parent this: is that's so, why tons of top selling and downloaded apps, the most popular ones by users and critics, are heavily themed? Letterpress, Clear, Paper, Google Maps, Evernote, iA Writer, Vine, Flipboard, etc etc.
Flat UI isn't some massive new UI paradigm? I thought that's exactly what it is.
> ... it's effectively a theme!
One of the major components of the success and pleasantness of iOS -- and Mac OS X before it -- has been platform consistency.
Apple has made a study of this, and that's part of what users are buying when they buy Apple's products. Dismantling that consistency (rather than, say, building on it) is detrimental to your user's experience and the cumulative value of both the user's purchase and training, as well as other developer's investment in furthering the platform.
There certainly can be a fine line between building on the platform standards and dismantling them, but rewriting all UI components is very much on the side of "dismantling".