Even if he is wrong about the literal meaning of skeumorphism- he very well pointed out what was right about the windows UI. And I think his intension with the charged statement was to convey the meaning that people talk without knowing what they are talking about.
My intention with discussing the meaning of skeuomorphism is to also convey that people talk without knowing what they are talking about.
Being vaguely angry about "young designers" and their "hip flat interfaces" is a common trigger on HN. I've seen it here countless times, and its rarely insightful. The argument is rooted in a the fallacy that designers only care about making "pretty" things.
Likewise, I've also heard it the same way towards engineers. 99% of engineers only care about cool technical solutions and not meeting users needs. When you've drawn such a broad stroke, it's not a basis for good discussion...just a flamewar.
> Being vaguely angry about "young designers" and their "hip flat interfaces" is a common trigger on HN.
No, the triggering part of your message was the "nostalgia" claim, which isn't supported by the evidence. Even young people typically have an easier time finding their way around interfaces with an older visual design than a modern flat design (all else being equal). This has been tested.
The fact that you claimed it anyway tells me that you have opinions on UI design but don't bother to check if they hold up.
Would you mind pointing to a good resource with a brief write up on the state of the art of good UI, as you pointed in your first comment? I'd also like to read up on the shadow stuff a bit, on how to do it right.
