>>45405469 Imho hyperrealism. Once the screens and renderers become even better they will show it making the UI real life looking, like it belongs to the real world. Thats how trends work, they go from one extreme to another. See how they introduced gradients and transparency 10 years ago?
>>45405583 More than likely we'll vary between forms of minimalism for a while, eventually we'll probably end up with some kind of geometric design and pseudo monochrome designs. Flat as an umbrella term is here for a long time
>>45406192 No. A good designer would probably be setting his own trends and not following what's 'hot'. Remember guys, all these cool things we think are cool have been implemented and enjoyed by people before us. Unless someone steps up and integrates computing interface with the human brain, then we are still as slow (if not slower) than our thoughts.
Gnome3. I'm not kidding. Instead of complete flatness they use the exact amount of depth illusion (bevels, gradients) necessary to effectively indicate information hierarchy and interaction (what's clickable; buttons and other widgets), both, for the light and the dark theme variations (whom each serve it's purpose). One of the reason why I, as a fa/gd/ick, appreciate that project.
>>45406688 2014 is so superior. All that visual clutter reduced, looks so good I've always hated Windows UI for having such ugly menus, their gay gradients and attempts at depth are pathetic and horrible
>>45406430 "Flat design" has forever existed in print and other forms of visual design. It's the embodiment of clarity with it's sharp contrast between shapes. Windows Vista / KDE / OSX like shiny bubbly crap going on for a decade was a trend itself in the digital realm where designers often drew shiny, reality imitating crap just because they could, because the digital medium let them do it, because it looked 'cool', not because it was really necessary. It's neat craftsmanship, in certain amount it can be used in a very good way as I said here >>45406411 , but the lack of such decoration won't put good designers out of the work, because it has never been a fundamental need. Good designers are busy with more important, content oriented considerations. And this complete visual flatness in nowadays projects is also a phase that will go, because it's not always good for indicating which elements are interactive and which aren't.
I'm calling 3D isomorphic with slowly moving parts and gentle physics in response to input/scrolling. Even though depth will be an important aspect, people will still call it "flat" design.
Material Design will die a slow, saturated death. Hipster designers don't understand that Paper is intended to be just one facet of the idea. I think that this is good because users will hopefully get bored of Google's look and start using other services which have better designers that don't need to conform to the look and feel of all the applications in a massive suite.
It may affect a small minority of designers / illustrators who have been exclusively making money out of crafting complex interface icon sets, but even those will figure out how to apply their extensive digital graphics creation skills on new visual styles and other kinds of design / illustration work.
>>45405627 >Once the screens and renderers become even better they will show it making the UI real life looking, like it belongs to the real world
Won't happen, because a) rendering time, b) uncanny valley.
People that harp on about flat design don't understand flat design. It's not just a visual style, it's a way of removing superfluous metaphor from the actual UI patterns. Photorealism and its associated implementations are often less efficient.
It's not. It's probably harder to do 'good' flat design than what came before it, since flat design is all about subtlety. You can't murder any mistakes by applying millions of filters and gloss in Photoshop.
>>45405583 >Minimalism and babby flatshit is the pinnacle of human design I looked and I looked, but I simply couldn't find a reaction image that properly represents how I feel about what I just read. This'll have to do.
They still do take a lot of effort. For example, if you were to communicate sharing with something pictorial, you might have a picture of someone actually handing over a document. It takes a lot of thought to create an icon that is distinctive and actually iconographic, where meaning is clear from the onset without being completely pictorial.
Shadows and gloss were very easy things to implement in reality. Stark design means that all the visible details need to be perfect.
"Flat design" as a way of removing non-necessary elements will be here to stay. Subtle, tasteful design is here to stay, and really all the "4D" icons from the mid-late 2000s were the exception compared with the fifty years preceding them.
What will change is all these horrible colour schemes. Yosemite would look nicer without the ELECTRIC BLUE in the OS. Lollipop would look nicer with a refined palette too. Windows 8 likewise.
>>45405469 Floating UI elements. Especially when devs figure out good input for AR and VR.
Also, the only thing things that would look good for floating UI are flat icons (material design) and fully 3D objects. Any previous icon standard would look retarded on something other than a 2D flat screen.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.