Oh, thanks for sharing this Nirzar. And I DO agree with Sean Dexter: it looks like most of these task scenarios compared "weak signifiers" and "strong signifiers", of which the 'flatness' of the design element was not the most salient difference. Not by a long shot.
I used Windows phone for a number of years. And to be fair many of the signifiers in Metro *were* quite weak---for example, lots of clickable textual elements were the same color as display text, and only visually differentiated by their placement, font, size, etc. I can certainly see how this makes a UI less easily *learnable. *I'm not sure it makes the UI less *usable* overall, at least not for people who are already somewhat familiar with it. A lot of NN's user testing is performed in an e-Commerce context, and the scenarios implicitly or explicitly assume the user is interacting with a new webpage or UI for the first time. Strong signifiers are obviously important in that case. I'm not sure they are always *quite *as important for applications that see repeated use--like a launcher, a music . Once I know that clicking on widget X causes Y to happen, does widget X really need to look like a big red 3D button? But then, I loved flat design, and still do. :) For better or worse, most of us are pretty use to weak/absent signifiers in a mobile context by now--think about all the functionality on your phone that is only accessible through multitouch gestures, which usually aren't called out in the UI *at all.* - J On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:00 PM, nirza...@gmail.com <nirza...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not that I agree with either but just stumbled on a follow up post that > might be relevant > > https://medium.com/@seandexter1/flat-design-why- > you-should-question-nielsen-normans-research-on-the-trendy-design-style- > 39a991517e02 > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Peter Coombe <pcoo...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> For what it's worth, we've done quite a few tests with WMF fundraising >> banners of skeuomorphic vs more flat designs, and didn't find any clear >> differences in performance overall. We're now using OOUI styles which have >> consistently performed well. I think they strike a nice balance between >> "flatness/cleanness" and signifiers, plus it's nice to have consistency >> with other parts of the site. >> >> On 7 September 2017 at 09:46, Pau Giner <pgi...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Yet it shouldn't be too hard to notice a 20 % slowdown with small >>>> usability tests/focus groups. It could be interesting to test a couple >>>> existing skins and a couple big interface changes in the works (such as >>>> Special:RecentChanges and Special:Search) to see if there is any such big >>>> gap anywhere. >>> >>> >>> For the case of Recent Changes a before/after comparison >>> <https://phab.wmfusercontent.org/file/data/keh3ox7d7zowy776azjp/PHID-FILE-xyklxklkb6g7nyu3jmi2/RC-before-after.png> >>> does >>> not seem to suggest that the changes involved going flat. In the previous >>> state the filtering UI was a box with a flat lists of links and text, while >>> the new UI uses contrast and grouping to help users identify the different >>> elements. >>> >>> If there is any particular aspect related to flatness that anyone thinks >>> we need to pay special attention to, feel free to share it and we can >>> incorporate it in future research. We have been doing different rounds of >>> research to test initial concepts >>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_-_Recent_Changes_Filters_Rd1_Findings_2016.09-10.pdf> >>> , iterated ideas >>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Editing_-_RC_Extended_Filters_Usability_Testing_Deck_2017.06.pdf> >>> and the version available on beta >>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Contributors_-_RC_Filters_Integrated_%2B_Beta_Satisfaction_testing_deck_2017.07.pdf>. >>> The results suggest that users are able to identify more clearly which is >>> the current state of the filters and how to manipulate them with the new >>> approach. >>> >>> In general, I think that labels such as "flat design" combine several >>> different aspects that makes it hard to make broad statements like flat >>> design being good or bad for all contexts. Talking about the impact on >>> choices for the clarity of affordances, contrast of elements, layout >>> approaches, etc. makes more sense to me. For example, the >>> Nielsen/Norman article >>> <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/?lm=flat-design-best-practices&pt=article> >>> criticizes both skeumorphism (for resulting in "clunky interfaces") and >>> flat design (for the loss of clickability signifiers), but recommends what >>> they call "flat design 2.0" for incorporating signifiers based on our >>> intuition of phisics as Google's material does: >>> >>> 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. Flat 2.0 provides an >>>> opportunity for compromise — visual simplicity without sacrificing >>>> signifiers. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Saint Johann <ole.y...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In all fairness, I hope we wouldn’t. OOUI has so much more elements >>>> that have no alternative in Apex theme, even accessible checkboxes are not >>>> present in Apex (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162849). >>>> Retiring Apex, not reinstating it, seems like the best solution at this >>>> point, since Wikimedia developers and designers have a pretty average track >>>> record when it comes to consistent development of alternative solutions (e. >>>> g., current skins). >>>> >>>> The research itself is a bit misleading and sensationalising: it >>>> doesn’t compare stylistic elements of flat design and skeuomorphism, it >>>> essentially compares bad design practices (bad styling of CTA/primary >>>> button, styling tabs like some kind of buttons, styling links like text) >>>> and good practices. It should not be taken at word, although usually >>>> Nielsen Norman Group have good points in their studies. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/09/2017 13:22, Bartosz Dziewoński wrote: >>>> >>>>> OOUI was originally created with a classic design for buttons and >>>>> other fields, and that theme (now called 'Apex') is still available and >>>>> maintained. https://doc.wikimedia.org/oojs-ui/master/demos/?theme=apex >>>>> We could switch to it at a moment's notice. Personally I wouldn't mind >>>>> seeing it again ;) >>>>> >>>>> Still, buttons in the default theme are not entirely "flat", they have >>>>> at least borders (or strong backgrounds) to distinguish them. The biggest >>>>> problem is the existence of 'frameless' buttons (in both themes), which >>>>> look just like normal text if they don't have an icon or something. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Design mailing list >>>> Design@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Pau Giner >>> Senior User Experience Designer >>> Wikimedia Foundation >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Design mailing list >>> Design@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Design mailing list >> Design@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > Design@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design > > -- Jonathan T. Morgan Senior Design Researcher Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)>
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
