[HN Gopher] The Reemergence of Style in Software
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Reemergence of Style in Software
        
       Author : sundaypancakes
       Score  : 76 points
       Date   : 2021-10-16 05:31 UTC (17 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (future.a16z.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (future.a16z.com)
        
       | gjvc wrote:
       | This article takes many words to say very little. If anything,
       | "style" in software peaked in the public mind with the rise of
       | Mac OS X in the early 2000s where the Aqua theme was juicy,
       | looked like you wanted to lick it, and combined with things like
       | the genie animation gave Mac OS X a wonderful sense of character.
       | (Probably peaking at 10.6/Snow Leopard.)
       | 
       | This character has been systematically removed from the system
       | since then, with successive updates since Apple began, lemming-
       | like, to follow some "thought" "leader" in "design" believing
       | that flatness in UI design was somehow "modern" and innovative.
       | (The irony is that the flat buttons use less CPU/GPU power to
       | render than the shaded three-dimensional ones which preceded
       | them, something of which we now have orders of magnitude more.)
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | _> Modern software's humdrum lack of identity has resulted in
       | users craving more interesting, opinionated tools, tools that
       | feel like us -- or a better, more interesting, wackier version of
       | us._
       | 
       | The above is the kind of sentence that you'll see in almost any
       | fashion or arts magazine.
       | 
       | Pretty fluffy stuff. Not really the kind of thing we're used to,
       | in the engineering community.
       | 
       | That said, I firmly believe that there's always a place for good
       | graphic and interaction design, in technology.
       | 
       | I don't feel that it's a problem. Some companies will stick to
       | "the classics," while some will go overboard with the
       | "chrome"[0], so to speak.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.mprove.de/script/99/kai/2Software.html
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | prox wrote:
         | I am going to make a claim as someone who works in both the
         | crossroad of devwork and design that there is not one piece of
         | software that caters truly for the artist.
         | 
         | Every piece of software for artists / designers is not
         | intuitive. It's sliders, knobs, modals and panels. Programmers
         | making design software is Not A Good Idea.
         | 
         | The way forward is something like ProCreate, so just the
         | software and the pen, and maybe more auxiliary devices (a color
         | palet for instance) to become more analog again.
        
           | jimmaswell wrote:
           | What do you want, an AI that reads your mind and generates
           | the exact art you want? Barring that, a perfectly intuitive
           | tool is impossible past a certain point of complexity. If you
           | want something in front of something else you're going to
           | have to learn what a layer is. If you want something at just
           | the right transparency you're going to have to adjust the
           | transparency.
           | 
           | Maybe some kind of virtual art studio in VR would be helpful
           | for people who want a more physically intuitive experience
           | with some extras like undo and saving copies, but even then
           | you're still going to have to learn a thing or two about the
           | tool to use it, like any tool.
        
           | ksec wrote:
           | >The way forward is something like ProCreate
           | 
           | You mean [1] ? I dont disagree with your point but I dont
           | understand how pro create is any different to any other
           | design software on iPad.
           | 
           | [1] https://procreate.art
        
             | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
             | ProCreate works very well with the Apple Pencil.
             | 
             | The Apple Pencil, and the iPad Pro (esp. the latest of
             | each), is awesome. They did a really good job on that.
             | 
             | I don't use ProCreate, but that's mostly because I'm not
             | really that kind of graphic designer.
             | 
             | I remember looking at "paintbox" tools for video effects,
             | in the 1970s. We've come a long, long way, and real artists
             | have some really nice tools at their disposal.
        
               | ksec wrote:
               | So it is Apple Pencil that is making the difference, Not
               | Pro Create?
               | 
               | Because parent mention Apps were the problem? Or is it
               | more like Apps _designed_ for Apple Pencil will be the
               | future? Not mouse and keyboard?
        
               | prox wrote:
               | It's the intuitive way you can draw without endlessly
               | dialing knobs, tweak panels and so on. It's fluent, which
               | I feel, a lot of apps lack. I love to see more UI / UX
               | creativity.
        
               | theaussiestew wrote:
               | I'm very curious about what you mean specifically around
               | UI/UX creativity. I do agree with you though, which is
               | why I've been trying to build an app that has more
               | "creative" and non traditional UX elements.
               | 
               | I also feel that an 'Ink-Board' should replace the
               | trackpad as we know it. Basically an E-Ink tablet that
               | serves as a stylus, pointer and control input. So that
               | we're not limited to discrete inputs (as opposed to
               | analogue inputs).
        
           | pjc50 wrote:
           | It's been a long time since the unique and slightly bizarre
           | Kai's Power Tools:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools
        
             | prox wrote:
             | Yeah, and in many ways, we haven't seen many more trials
             | like that.
        
         | andybak wrote:
         | So I read the first sentence and my immediate reaction was
         | "Well I don't. And I'm not sure anyone has ever expressed that
         | opinion to me" and I stopped reading.
        
           | agumonkey wrote:
           | There's a bit of truth. The era of extremely engineered
           | everything gave birth to flat design for instance. I'm not
           | pro skeumorphism but I remember how odd software felt good in
           | a way. As long as it was fun (good boards, useful programs)
           | you ended up liking the quirks.
        
             | andybak wrote:
             | I don't disagree but I didn't get any of that from that
             | opening statement. It seems to be arguing for diversity in
             | UI which I happen to think is usually a terrible idea.
        
               | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
               | _> It seems to be arguing for diversity in UI which I
               | happen to think is usually a terrible idea._
               | 
               | I have to agree with this sentiment. I _loved_ KPT, but
               | that was more for the  "adventure" aspect. I actually had
               | difficulty using a lot of functions (don't ask me to
               | remember which ones).
               | 
               | It's frustrating, designing innovative UI that also
               | follows convention. It's a joy, when it works.
               | 
               | I have this iOS widget that I wrote[0]. It's really,
               | really cool. Works a charm, and is easy to implement.
               | 
               | But I keep on not using it in my projects. It's too "in
               | your face." I think that UI needs to get the hell out of
               | the way, and just let the user do what they want to do.
               | 
               | I have a couple of more, more conventional widgets, that
               | I use all the time[1], [2].
               | 
               | KPT was "in your face," like no other UI I have ever
               | experienced.
               | 
               | [0] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-
               | projects/#RV...
               | 
               | [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-
               | projects/#RV...
               | 
               | [2] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-
               | projects/#RV...
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | Well, here's that opinion: today's flat UIs all look the
           | same, boring, and bland. I wish there was more quirkiness
           | too. Perhaps not to Kai Power tool's levels, but I enjoy the
           | functional quirkiness of many VST UIs.
           | 
           | Now you can continue reading. Seldom anybody learned much,
           | when they stopped reading at the point they disagreed with.
        
             | andybak wrote:
             | I want my UI's to be usable. I want it to be immediately
             | obvious what I need to do. I want them to become invisible
             | in the same way good tools do. I don't want my hammer to be
             | quirky, I want it to be an extension of my hand.
             | 
             | EDIT - Yeah. I have a certain fondness for Kai's. But I had
             | time to get used to them. It's one UI in a thousand where I
             | have time to get bedded in with it's quirks. For all the
             | rest - be boring.
        
         | Akronymus wrote:
         | > That said, I firmly believe that there's always a place for
         | good graphic and interaction design, in technology.
         | 
         | Form should come after function. But often times form actually
         | contributes to function. (In the sense of making the "right"
         | thing intuitive to do)
         | 
         | Function is IMO always paramount.
        
           | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
           | I've found the process to be iterative. Chicken->egg-
           | chicken->egg... etc.
        
       | kwertyoowiyop wrote:
       | > blase, blue-branded modern tools
       | 
       | Physician, heal thyself! :-)
       | 
       | Also - it's a little depressing to see the Cambrian explosion of
       | graphic style in the first 30 years of consumer software reduced
       | to Windows and KidPix. Oh well, I guess it's on me to "be the
       | change I want to see in the world" and do a blog post with some
       | other examples!
        
       | JustAnonymous wrote:
       | Modern UI/UX design is mass-produced, homogenized rubbish. The
       | cadres who have plunged us into this abyss of anti-usability can
       | no more be relied upon to undo their mistakes than they could to
       | come up with a usable design to begin with.
        
       | colesantiago wrote:
       | This is peak a16z marketing hype.
        
       | Tade0 wrote:
       | Going off on a tangent here but I clicked the link explaining why
       | tower PCs used to be beige and it made me realize that my career
       | didn't overlap with the era of cubicles - I entered the job
       | market at a time when the norm was an open space plan.
       | 
       | I wonder if I would hate the cubicle as much as I hate open space
       | offices?
       | 
       | Can anyone who's witnessed this transition weigh in?
        
         | mistrial9 wrote:
         | yes - I worked in a computer-aided chemistry company as
         | software engineer in California in the 90s. The culture there
         | was from the 80s, but the scientists were very hard working!
         | (scientists may not write very good code but you know, they can
         | write a lot of it! athlete/scientist was common in my group). I
         | was making pretty good money and my father wanted to see where
         | I worked once. So I used my badge to walk in with the two of
         | us, to a ~10 meter x 16 meter open room, with about four glass
         | walled offices on one side and the rest of the area with
         | cubicles.. maybe two dozen or more.. some of the cubicles were
         | "big" with a table, some medium, and then a number of ordinary
         | ones. I was used to it, but as a male, I could see over the
         | cube walls while walking, whereas shorter colleagues could not.
         | Other small things about it at another time.. (some offices at
         | Apple Inc, Cupertino were also laid out like that -- maybe they
         | got it from their HP-imported managers).
         | 
         | My father was silently aghast.. he was actually startled by
         | seeing everyone in the room like that.. all the commotion. It
         | had never occured to him that people could be arranged like a
         | lab rat-maze (which it was really).
        
         | Icathian wrote:
         | I've just barely bridged it. Cubicles were better I think. It
         | wasn't real privacy but it was at least something.
        
         | notpachet wrote:
         | You'd have hated cubicles too, before open office became the
         | norm. Cubicles were the open office of their day. Before them,
         | it wasn't uncommon to have an office with your own door. Or at
         | least sharing a larger office with another person.
        
         | heymijo wrote:
         | > _Can anyone who 's witnessed this transition weigh in?_
         | 
         | Sure.
         | 
         | If you don't like the way you are treated in your organization
         | today in an open office, you probably wouldn't like the way you
         | are treated in one with cubicles.
         | 
         | Cubicle environments could be soul crushing (see the movie
         | Office Space). They offer a bit of privacy, but noise,
         | interruptions, a boss peering over your back at your screen
         | unannounced could all still interrupt flow and focused work.
        
         | amelius wrote:
         | Cubicles were not that great.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtTUsOKjWyQ
        
       | wruza wrote:
       | I read it two times and didn't get the point. It seems to me more
       | like a bit of history and state of things article rather than
       | reemergence examples.
        
       | sesuximo wrote:
       | I thought this was going to be about elegance in
       | swe/implementations
        
       | zh3 wrote:
       | Submitted previously 6 days ago:-
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28812639
        
       | coldtea wrote:
       | > _By designing everything on the screen to be as photorealistic
       | as possible, the software essentially negated needing to define
       | its style or stance -- it merely reflected the world outside of
       | it._
       | 
       | Not even close to reality. Aqua, iOS "skeuomorphism" had a very
       | defined and unique style.
       | 
       | It obviously wasn't some photograph of an actual desktop with
       | some folders on top and a garbage can, as this makes it sound
       | (not to mention that even if it was, there are 10000s of ways to
       | have a unique style and stance in a photograph too).
       | 
       | Hell, old "photorealistic" GUIs were even MORE distinct from one
       | another than today, with everybody having their same-looking flat
       | UIs.
        
       | quonn wrote:
       | Or maybe there are few startups with real innovation that is safe
       | from excessive competition, so now software has become merely a
       | fashion as a substitute for innovation?
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | I think this is an undergrad paper published on a blog.
       | 
       | It's hard to see if this article is really making a legit point,
       | from a confusing typos early (swapping "form" and "function", or
       | claiming beige was used in software, when all displays were
       | monochrome back then) to pulling out random historical artifacts
       | apparently without understanding them (the Star's portrait
       | display was not "distinct"; on the contrary the switch to
       | landscape happened in the mid 80s; the _first_ Mac had both a
       | distinct physical design and graphic clues like the trash can and
       | floppy disk; those were not introduced in the 80s, etc).
       | 
       | Laid upon that are a few anodyne design "observations" that have
       | been common in graphic design articles since the early 20th
       | century.
        
         | makk wrote:
         | Yeah, what is going on with the a16z blog?
        
         | pjc50 wrote:
         | The claim was that beige was the color of hardware (accompanied
         | by a link discussing this claim). Portrait displays have never
         | been very common (TVs were always landscape). This feels like a
         | particularly picky bit of nitpicking.
        
           | gumby wrote:
           | Criticizing a comment for its picayune choice of criticism is
           | quite reasonable, but in this case I don't think applicable.
           | 
           | I simply picked those as examples right from the beginning of
           | the essay: the old workstations like Alto, Dorado, Dolphin,
           | Dandelion (Star), CADR, LMI, Explorer, PERQ, blt, and even
           | the old AAA were all portrait. That _was_ the context into
           | which the Star was released. It was seemingly the workstation
           | form factor until the arrival of the PC. Likewise the
           | sentence reading  "Early computing _and software_ stuck to
           | shades of black, white, and beige " (emphasis mine). I only
           | mentioned the nonsense about the trashcan later to
           | demonstrate that this was a pervasive problem, rather than
           | merely one brainfart at the beginning of the essay, which
           | could have simply been poor editing.
           | 
           | A deeper example (which I cited) also shows up right up
           | front: the complete misunderstanding of form vs function that
           | implies the author really didn't know what they were talking
           | about (to cite that is to pull in a century of famous
           | discussion; if you don't understand it how could your
           | argument reply upon it?)
           | 
           | I could go on but this essay isn't worth my (or your) time.
           | There is a very interesting argument to be made on this
           | topic, but this blog post isn't it.
        
       | base698 wrote:
       | The article mentions crypto being a leader in this return to
       | style.
       | 
       | Some examples:
       | 
       | - https://apeboard.finance
       | 
       | - https://curve.fi/
       | 
       | - https://opensea.io/
       | 
       | - https://www.trufflesuite.com/ganache
        
       | celeduc wrote:
       | "a16z" must have an entire team dedicated to generating and
       | promoting clickbait articles for HN.
        
       | cblconfederate wrote:
       | > These aesthetics were both compelling and immediately
       | understandable to newcomers
       | 
       | I liked skeuomorphic and i think most people find it comfortable
       | because it s familiar. What followed that seems (from the user
       | perspective) like a horde of conceited designers who think that
       | the user should suffer for their superior designs. Wasting
       | people's time trying to find where the button is, if it's pressed
       | , or what it means, is not cool. Bicycles for the mind should
       | make us go faster. I don't see any return of style, i see more of
       | the same inanity, like e.g. twitter's latest redesign
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | I think skeumorphism is ok as long as it doesn't forget it's
         | software so physical limitations don't have to cripple the
         | application. Best times is when you have a bit of skeumorphism
         | and a bit of software extensibility / genericity.
        
       | schleck8 wrote:
       | I don't want to know how much money was paid for these logos
       | 
       | https://future.a16z.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Logo-Tran...
        
         | kwertyoowiyop wrote:
         | Can we also talk about how everyone's clip art looks so much
         | alike? All those tubular-limbed primary-colored simple sausage
         | people make me wince. I guess when you're making the 10,000th
         | SaaS you just want to be like the others.
        
           | Lammy wrote:
           | It's a nice way for companies to look diverse without
           | actually being diverse.
        
           | jkestner wrote:
           | "The style appears to serve as the illustrative arm of an
           | intentional deployment of cheerful minimalism to mask the
           | insidiousness of multinational tech corporations with
           | friendliness and approachability."
           | https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/dont-worry-these-gangley-
           | armed-...
        
         | tenaciousDaniel wrote:
         | I didn't realize Pinterest had fallen victim as well. Never
         | really liked the platform but always liked their logo. Sad.
        
         | legutierr wrote:
         | I would barely call them logos. It's like they found the name
         | of the company mentioned in the title of some blog article and
         | just took a screenshot.
         | 
         | The new Pinterest logo is downright offensive, given how great
         | the original was.
        
           | schleck8 wrote:
           | I totally agree. The old Airbnb logo communicated the 'air'.
           | Now it's a salmon pink (??) generic sans serif type with a
           | just as generic A icon
        
           | sanderjd wrote:
           | Yeah the old Pinterest logo is great. The old Spotify logo
           | really isn't. Which is not to say they did a very good job on
           | the new one....
        
         | mjw1007 wrote:
         | << By appealing to everyone with these clean lines, gradients,
         | and rounded shapes, no one feels particularly compelled by
         | them. >>
         | 
         | To be honest, I think this bit of fashion is just a pendulum
         | that swings back and forth every decade or two.
         | 
         | One curious thing I noticed on the swing back in the opposite
         | direction around the early 90s (when many logos changed from
         | circles and constant-width strokes to ellipses and more
         | 'stressed' letters): the new logos somehow seemed to me to be
         | "cleaner" than the previous ones, even though that's also what
         | I'd felt when things were going the other way.
        
         | mistrial9 wrote:
         | I disagree that this is a fashion -- logo design over the last
         | 100+ years has consistantly shifted this way, while the media
         | they are communicated in has engendered lower and lower
         | attention span, vastly faster exposure rates per day, massive
         | audiences.
         | 
         | The information in the logo is being reduced for specific
         | reasons. I agree that this is de-facto loss of diversity and
         | culture for delivery, somewhat analagous to factory methods of
         | goods production.
        
           | Frost1x wrote:
           | I don't think it's just analogous, I think it's directly
           | related. Taylorism imposed on society by the most greedy
           | amongst us is, in my opinion, the cause of this as they've
           | become (or perhaps, always were) the axiomatic drivers of
           | policy and power in western society and culture.
           | 
           | My opinion is that this trend is due to a signal we're seeing
           | where people are being pushed towards efficiency goals in
           | their lives _constantly_ due to pressures presented on them
           | much of which flourished during the industrial revolution and
           | carried through technology in the information age.
           | 
           | I used to enjoy looking at something and taking 20 minutes to
           | explore what exactly it is and assess it, it's uniqueness or
           | lack thereof, and so on. Now, 20 minutes is too much time,
           | when I want or need something I just need Solution for what I
           | need so I can move to the next step of my life. I don't have
           | time to figure out what your product or service is, I need
           | Solution and you either offer it or not, I don't care about
           | your aesthetics or how nice it is (I do but thats often just
           | a bonus anymore as long as it accomplishes the goal).
           | 
           | Heck, I don't have the time to check the space of Solution
           | competitors to find what I need, I even outsource that to
           | third parties to tell me what's good and not good. There are
           | too many pressures in modern life for me to care and you
           | better tell me what it is you do and better do it because it
           | will effect _my_ efficiency which directly impacts how much
           | actual free /leisure time I do or don't have outside of my
           | constant efficiency pressures at every turn, from everyone.
           | 
           | In a world with less pressures of efficiency and ROI, we're
           | more willing to explore things when failure is acceptable and
           | the risk is more worth the potential of enriching our lives
           | by taking a chance on Solution and see what it's all about.
           | Hyper competitive societies don't allow this slack space. If
           | you take this path you better hope the risk was worth it or
           | you're wasting piles of time and money you already didn't
           | have.
           | 
           | While efficiency is important for healthy progress in society
           | and a lack of pressure leads to complacency and stagnation,
           | it's possible to go to extremes in either direction and I'd
           | say weve crossed that point as a society on the productivity
           | push. Some amount of leisure and excess are needed for human
           | happiness. We see this everywhere, "does X, fast, cheap,
           | best."
        
       | fidesomnes wrote:
       | mulieres perdita omnia.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-16 23:02 UTC)