Skeuomorphism. It’s a term you’ve probably haven’t heard much, or even at all, but you can see it almost everywhere. You open your bookshelf on your ipad and what do you see? A book shelf… designed to look like what you would in the real world. That’s skeuomorphism. At least that’s how designers have been using the term, which is inaccurate. It’s actually the mimicking of elements in a former or older device that were functionally necessary. Not necessarily the design looking like a real world object entirely…but I digress.
As many of you Apple product fans might already know, Scott Forstall, one of Apples designers, was fired over using Skeuomorphism.
“After Jobs’ death, Forstall become the company’s biggest proponent of skeuomorphism, much to the chagrin of the firm’s designers. “It’s visual masturbation,” one former Apple user-interface designer told Fast Company’s Carr. ”It’s like the designers are flexing their muscles to show you how good of a visual rendering they can do of a physical object. Who cares?”
- Should a Calendar App Look Like a Calendar? By Farhad Manjoo
Who cares indeed? Is it really that big of a deal to make objects on a screen look like their physical world counterparts? Personally, I don’t think it matters all that much. Real world objects are things users would be familiar with, and though on occasion it’s corny, I honestly feel like they make the apps and interface much more user friendly and quicker to read. People can tell what an app is for when they see a book shelf or a date book calendar, rather than some obscure screen with buttons and gizmos that have little to no indication of their use or function.
Yes, some of Apple’s software has become a bit corny. (I’m looking at your cheap-casino green felt, Game Center!) But those who advocate throwing out real-world textures and visual metaphors are missing something important. As designer Tobias Bjerrome Ahlin points out, when it’s used appropriately, skeuomorphic design can give users a quick sense of what an app does. - Should a Calendar App Look Like a Calendar? By Farhad Manjoo
Does it matter either way? Is it bad to make screen objects to look like their real world counterparts? The way I see it, if we’re using it daily in reality…why not make it look like it’s reality? Is it’s daily use not real enough for designers to want to make them look real? Because it’s certainly real enough for me. After all, it makes the virtual object more approachable for my generation, which happened to grow up from the transition between pen and paper to desktop. I’m used to using both, but perhaps in more recent generations, it may not matter as much to have any nostalgic allusion to the real world counterpart.
However obvious Apple’s skeuomorphic approach to UI might be, it’s an approach that is hard to argue with. The company is still considered highly innovative, and the success of its products is unprecedented–most would successfully argue that it’s by far the best we have. But aside from aesthetic reaons, it is hard to see how these designs will ever evolve beyond derivative representations. Will they just change color and increase their visual fidelity? -Can We Please Move Past Apple’s Silly, Faux-Real UIs? by Tom Hobbs
My question is, does it ever have to evolve? If it’s so classic do we need it to “get better” or even change? Perhaps the reason it’s so hard to argue with is because it’s so sustainable? I certainly feel like this is so. The way you can tell if something is designed well is if it can stand the test of time. Bookshelves still have the same structure as they have always had, and though we can change their color or paint them how we like in our homes, we certainly don’t change the structure of them much do we? So why would it be any different on screen. If it’s working well, why strive to change it. I think what we need to figure out is how to identify what is more valuable: sustainable or innovative?
We certainly live in a culture where everyone is striving to be “the next thing.” We automatically think that because we can have something new, we don’t want to hang onto what is sustainable. I’ve had my second generation iPod touch for a fairly long time in comparison to many of my peers. Why? Because what I have works for what I use it for…and it isn’t broken. But are we able to apply this same kind of logic to design? If it’s working, and remains relevant, is it okay to hold onto? Do we really need the next big thing in order to remain relevant, or are we confusing relevant with trendy?
Feel free to let me know what you think. For further reading visit these two articles.
With the War ongoing and the dilemma of ethical technology use ever more blurry. Many lawyers have been conducting legal research on the matter and the issue stands whether or not it is a legal issue at all, or simply a moral one.
This topic was brought up by what is being called the ”White Paper Memo” saying the President has the right to kill indiscriminately using drones…including US citizens (don’t you just love the freedom of equality).
For an introduction to the topic, please visit the link below.
The link below is a video that discusses the issue of Drone Warfare and the argument against it’s ethical and legal use.
The link below is to a video of Harold Koh, legal advisor to the US Department of State, arguing that the use of drone warfare is legal according to United States and International law.
Regardless of a person’s stance on the issue, we have to agree that to every action there is an intention, and there are those things that are unintended.
Medical technology has made leaps and bounds for people who suffer from hearing loss. This particular story touched me so much I had to share it with all of you. For many years Dawn Keim had been dealing with sever hearing loss issues causing her to be unable to hear at all. She was offered to be a candidate for a cochlear implant, but the decision to have the surgery was difficult, not because of any complications, but rather because she had grown so accustom to being unable to hear she was afraid of the unfamiliarity. She had never been able to hear her 8-year-old son speak…until now.
I don’t know about any of you, but I saw this on one of my dear friends facebook statuses today and it caused me to get a little nervous:
In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).
For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!
(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place
them under protection of copyright laws.
By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).
Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates.
Being an artists, graphic designer, and photographer, I know better than to post any of my most personal info and artistic content on Facebook. Having a healthy caution of putting things on the internet is the first step to being a responsible patron of the online community (and respect of yourself). However, whenever I heard of things like this I always tend to get a little paranoid. So, I do what I do best, and take a little peek at the online news to see if I can find enough reliable resources to validate or refute the statements. Turns out this whole thing is a hoax and honestly, you cannot refute the contract via facebook status. That’s not how the law and copyright works friends (and if anyone seriously thought that it did then you’ve been seriously uneducated). Also how can you refute facebook’s ownership with a status when they own the statuses you put up?
If you are interested in legally putting your work under Copyright then please visit the U.S. Copyright Office website for more information on going through the proper channels. For more info on the Hoax and facebook policies read your Facebook Terms of Agreement, and view these helpful articles:
If you’re a Mac user you know some of the connotations that go along with Macs. Yes, they’re expensive. Yes, many wealthy schools and people have Macs. Yes, Apple is a large company that has made quite a bit of money on their flashy (aka beautiful) products and unique marketing scheme. But, is that really cause for making people pay more online?
Yes, you heard me correctly.
Being a Mac user I can’t say that I’ve come across this problem. Mostly because the site found to have done this kind of marketing was Orbiz, which is a site I don’t particularly use, because I’ve not needed to book hotels before. But several articles from US News, CNN, and CNet have given information about this type of business practice, one that I find personally to be unethical. The CEO of Orbitz comments on the matter (From CNNs report):
“CEO Barney Harford told CNN that Orbitz recommendation results are part of an attempt to pair customers with the hotel they’d probably pick. In this case, Orbitz will offer recommendations based on what other PC or other Mac users selected as their final hotel, on the assumption that spending habits are the same, he said.
“What we have found is … that Mac users are 40% more likely to book four- or five-star hotels than PC users,” Harford said. “That lines up with (the fact that) Mac users are typically more willing to spend more money on higher-end computers.”
Now when one reads this 40% is a pretty high number. But, what if you consider that 40% of students are the purchasers of Mac computers? According to SeattlePi reports, Microsoft hasn’t been very attractive to this new generation. Though the information is almost 2 years old the trend is apparent on college campuses, coffee shops, and cyber cafes across the nation. Students are a fairly large sum of mac users, and I ask why should they pay more? Aren’t loans enough to pay off?
Of course this is all here-say as well, there is still a lot of information that isn’t accounted for. There is still that 60% of Mac users to take into account. There is still the fact that some people receive Macs as gifts like I did with mine (I’d like to know what % that is). But, regardless of that information, it causes a kind of socioeconomic profiling that I simply cannot reconcile, even if it’s for the sake of marketing. It’s almost as bad as The Nations report on how women pay more for everyday items (even medical insurance) than men do. It’s simply unreasonable. If The United States is a nation that stands for equality, then why are we being reduced to stereotypes based off something as small as the kind of computers we use? Why do human lives and choices have dollar signs all over them at all? All I know from this information is I won’t be using Orbitz anytime soon…or later in my life.
Recently on my Facebook I saw a picture that portrayed an act of parental discipline. It was of a young (about twelve- year-old) girl holding a sign that read:
“Since I want to post photos of me holding liquor, I am obviously not ready for social media and will be taking a hiatus until I learn what I should and should not post.
Bye-Bye ”
Of course a heated debate ensued in the comment section about what modern parenting should look like in terms of social media. Some thought the punishment was too severe (mostly young kids and inexperienced users) and others thought it was perfect (mostly adult women). I sat back and watch the comments fly and I pondered the words on that sign. They had a deeper meaning to me.
With the introduction of social media parents have a lot more they need to be aware of. With law enforcement consistently watching the online community it’s no wonder. Underage children are allowed to post whatever they want to “express themselves” but in the end the parents are liable for what their children post and Social Services can take children out of environments they think they are threatened or neglected…and all they need is suspicion.
Who really loses?
I’ve written enough posts about this subject before, but I simply cannot stress it enough. The most common issue with youth and the internet is improper education in Netiquette. Parents need to play an active role in their children lives on and off the net by teaching them wise internet use. The internet has been around for a bit more than 2 decades, and has already integrated a plethora of diversity. However, with this diversity came people who missed a few steps in the learning process. When I was younger, we were taught how to use the internet, but never any kind of internet safety. Social media was restricted to chat rooms that were few and far between, and parents didn’t know the extent of the online community. Generations experienced the online explosion without fully understanding it’s consequences.
What resulted from this online ignorance?
Today we have a generation that has the potential to be destructive. They can’t keep personal lives and professional lives separate because they don’t know how to log off. They say what they want, do what they want, and value “free speech” more than discretion and wisdom. They do not recognize authority or understand the emotional impact their words can make. Nor do they understand consequences because “it’s just Facebook” and “It doesn’t mean anything.” With the average high schooler having well over 300 friends “drama” can quickly become an all out war that leaves parents, teachers and principals looking to law enforcement to roam school halls and keep the peace.
In our online society…freedom has left our hands tied.
I’m not a parent. I do not claim to have any cure-all answers. I am, however, a person who has a passion for computer ethics as well as children and want to help parents become as aware as they can about the dangers and wonders of online use. I’m also a person who wishes someone had taught me more when I was younger about proper internet use (and thankfully my parents tried their best to ensure I treated people the same online as I would in public).The internet is a wonderful tool. But, as with all tools it has to be used wisely or someone could get hurt.
As I pondered the picture I found myself admiring the parents. That sign stood as a symbol. Though the daughter might have been upset she had yet to understand the importance of this message. What it really said (as I interpreted it) was:
“I love my child. I want her to make good decisions. I want her to grow up to be productive with a healthy social life. Parents, your children will be safe in our home because we do not condone this behavior. We are taking active responsibility to ensure this home is a safe place for everyone. Children, let this be an example to you to make wise decisions. If not because it’s the right thing to do or because you love and respect your parents…to save yourself from a similar punishment and embarrassment.”
For more information about how you can learn or teach your kids more about Netiquette feel free to visit this link: http://networketiquette.net/index.html
I came across this article today on my Twitter feed about the ways that Design Creatives are working and the difference it’s making in the design industry. What this article comes down to is this: we’re wasting an awful lot of time. This article from the 99% website offers an insight into how creatives have become distracted and removed from personal creativity because of access to so many other great (but unoriginal) ideas. Not only that, but communication technologies themselves are actually taking us away from our work as creatives such as e-mail (said to be one of the biggest distractions).
Again we see another issue with our ability to use technology actually taking away from our ability to work. According to this article the average Creative works 9 hours per day, but only 3.5 hours of that is considered productive time. Now I understand that statistics can be misleading, but being a college student as well as a creative intern this isn’t too far fetched from my own experience. The internet is distracting and people are distracting too.
The article goes on to talk about “open offices” which is a set up with an open floor plan that allows employees to have face time, and over all improve community in the work place. The problem is, we’re human. We’re easily distracted from our work, and once our train of thought has been broken by something interesting enough (and people are interesting), we lose our ability to create in a timely manner. In fact, most of our productive time is being done on a laptop in the comfort of our own homes. Even more is getting done when creatives sketch it out on paper (an important point to note).
Perhaps the technology we’re seeing regularly isn’t actually helping us. In most cases, one can’t help but realize how the technology that once helped us “get it done faster” is actually taking up more of our time. As Creatives, we can’t allow this to happen, because it leaves rooms for creativity to get sucked out of us. We often fall prey to sites like Pinterest (wonderful site) that give great design ideas…but they’re ideas already thought of.
Let’s be original and good at what we do. Not too much to ask I think.
A New York court on April 8th declared it legal to view child pornography on the internet claiming thst it is not “possessing” child pornography if it is merely being viewed (See full article here).
The issue the, New York court of appeals states, is that viewing online doesn’t mean you posses the media its self. If you view a lawn mower online doesn’t mean you own it right? Well, they aren’t wrong on that point, but we aren’t talking about inanimate possessions any more are we? We’re talking about children, living breathing beings being abused for the sake of entertainment (I’m sure that if one of the court members own children was in one of those online child pornography sites, they’d be playing a much different tune). What about hiring hit men? If one isn’t killing anyone themselves are they still held responsible for the death? The way I see it, viewing pornography is the same as hiring a hit man because it is another way of enabling the creation of child porn simply because of the increase in demand for it (and an increase will inevitably come as viewing increases).
On a side note I was dicussing pornography with a friend and they made a good argument. They wondered how is pornography is not considered prostitution when you’re paying people to have sex with other people…like prostitutes. So why isn’t porn specifically illegal like prostitution considering they have the same definition?
Regardless, online morality might be taking an “interesting” (to put it lightly) turn because of this ruling.
Want to know what you can do to help fight against child pornography? Click here.
Let’s combine nerdiness and design! Marketing departments always have long discussions about color, and Dungeons & Dragons is no exception. Check out Jon Schindehette’s article about the color design of the franchise and the difficulties of dealing with period items.
Ever walked into an interview and been asked for your facebook username and password? Apparently this women has. To get the full original story click here.
Big controversy over employers asking for full access to prospective and current employee facebook accounts. As I understand this was recently voted down in the House as reported on March 28th (due to a few holes in the proposal as well as other arguments), but there is still legislation that can be made within states wether or not to allow such information to be available to employers (click here for more info). It’s not a wide spread practice, but one can’t help but be unnerved. We’re not obligated to give our e-mail and zipcode to stores for marketing reasons. So why should we give our employers our private and personal information? They have our Social Security numbers for heaven’s sake! As if that isn’t unnerving enough.
I understand the desire to check personal information and make sure you’re hiring a quality employee, but what does a Facebook page have to do with it? Sure there are privacy setting people put up, but usually those are specifically to prevent undesirables from contacting you and knowing where you live. What could you possibly be keeping from an employer that they couldn’t see my looking at your facebook profile? Personal and professional lives are meant to be separate aren’t they? Have we lost the art of switching hats? Are we that desperate that we need to have constant access to our workplaces?
I usually try to remain objective in my posts, but things like this friggin’ irritate me. We should have some kind of protection under the law that allows us to ask the same of our employers if we’re not able to have protection to keep it to ourselves. If I were ever asked to do such a thing, I’d ask them for their passwords so I could figure out if they’re the kind of person I’d want to work for. I as an employee have to protect myself too right? And how do I know my boss is a trustworthy person? How can I look for red flags if I don’t come into contact with them often (an issue with large companies)? I feel if employers want to ask high standards of their employees they should also be held to the same standard to their employees. A “Golden Rule of Private Information” if you will. I’d bet if something like that were to happen, very few employers would ever ask for Facebook passwords ever again, much less have anything good on there to begin with.
As usual I highly recommend to you read the provided links in this post completely so you can fully understand the extent of these potential laws.
”
