Apple's Design Strategy - Innovative or Just Tacky?

Posted by


With the launch of the iPhone 5, the internet is buzzing about Apple and its design strategy. While the company is often hailed as being innovative and the industry leader in product design, there are others who think that Apple's habit of creating digital copies of real-life objects is just plain tacky.

A recent article at FastCompany mentioned the flaws in Apple's design strategy, and I thought it made an interesting point about the possible limitations to innovation. The design strategy in question is called "skeuomorphism." A skeuomorph is a design that keeps ornamental design cues to a structure that was necessary in the original, even when not functionally necessary. It's a big word, but examples of skeuomorphic design are all around us. The brass rivet on a pair of jeans or the flame-shaped light bulbs in overhead lights are all skeumorphic design features.

Nowhere is this design element more readily apparent than in the world of digital graphic design. On your computer screen, right now, there are probably several examples of this design style. Although there is nothing wrong with the design strategy on its own, there is a risk that, when overused, it could hinder the user experience, limit the functionality and that it will quickly become dated. The Apple design team is well-known for creating applications that mimic their real-life counterparts. For example, their notepad looks like a yellow legal pad, complete with the perforated tear off strip. Apple's iBook app uses a rich wood bookcase to display the cover art of the user's books. In fact, everything from the gradient edges on icon buttons, which create the look and feel of an actual button, to the felt covered, casino-styled Game Center background are designed to have the same visual appeal as the real thing.

When you think about it, this design strategy has been a hallmark of Apple since the beginning. They were the first company to design a desktop computer for the masses and their use of icons that look like everyday objects made it easy for users to quickly understand how things work. The original design of a computer screen that looks like the top of a desk, the folders and even the classic trash can were all chosen to make the Apple computer user-friendly, and it worked.

But, is creating a visually pleasing, easy-to-use application reminiscent of the real world a bad thing? I'm not sure. Skeumorphic design isn't wrong. In fact, there are plenty of reasons why it can be a smart design choice:

It feels familiar. When you see a calendar that looks like an expensive desk blotter, it's easy to understand how the program works. For older users or people who aren't familiar with technology, seeing a traditional looking calendar makes them feel in control and less afraid of the new version. A bookcase, a yellow legal pad and even an icon with an envelope are easy to understand at a glance. In general, people prefer things that look familiar. It's what gives Apple a very intuitive user experience.

It can be visually rich and more appealing. A digital calendar doesn't have to have a faux-leather binding or a rich paper texture. However, the visual appeal is undeniable. It gives the user an instant feeling of luxury and helps make the program look more engaging. Apple's design looks clean, simple and sexy. Apple customers, in general, want to feel that they are buying a luxury item.

It shows a high level of attention to detail. As with all of Apple's design choices, there is an attention to detail that's almost scary. In replicating real world objects, no detail is too small. Instead of just making a functional calendar that has space to enter appointments, turning it into a desk blotter is more technically challenging and lets the designers show what they can do. To do skeuomorphic design correctly, the designers have to replicate every detail of the original object, which can be difficult.

That being said, there are several reasons why it's a bad idea to rely to heavily on skeuomorphic design features:

It isn't always the best use of digital space. Just because something is a good choice in real-world design doesn't mean that it's the best way to do things digitally. The risk of using a replica of a real item means that the functionality of the program will be limited to the same functional limits as the real thing. For example, having a calculator that looks and feels like a real one means that you still have to type in numbers exactly as you would on a real calculator. This limits the program's ability to do more.

It can alienate younger users. As the world becomes more digital, younger users aren't always familiar with the real world object. For example, a virtual Rolodex can look really cool, but many people have never even seen a Rolodex, let alone used one. The visual cues don't work for them and the idea that contact information should be on a wheel seems odd. The risk here is that while older people will find the design familiar, younger users will wonder why it looks the way it does. A good example of this is the camera shutter sound on my iPhone. The camera doesn't have an old-fashioned shutter, but when I take a picture, I still hear a shutter sound. It's unnecessary, but it reassures users that the image was captured. Many young people have never used a traditional camera, so this throwback is lost on them. They just know that their iPhone cameras make that noise and learn to associate the sound with taking a photo.

It can stifle innovation. This is perhaps the biggest risk in using skeuomorphic design. The more we concentrate on making the digital world look like the real world, the less we are truly appreciating the wide open spaces that digital design provides. Making things look like old things can prevent creative people from removing their assumptions about what things have to look like, making them miss out on opportunities to make items that are better than the original. For example, the young people who are learning to associate the camera shutter sound with taking a photo will continue to depend on the sound of a the shutter closing even though there is no shutter. As they grow and become designers, they might pass along this camera shutter sound, creating a new generation of people who need the sound as well.

There are pros and cons to any design strategy, and if overused, it can become a crutch. Maybe the digital world is ready to see some new ideas about what these programs can look like.

 

Image by Keattikorn / freedigitalphotos.net

Comment

Become a member to take advantage of more features, like commenting and voting.

Jobs to Watch