Talk:Flat design

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Industrial design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction articles

It's mentioned several times in this article that flat design is the opposite of skeuomorphic design. This is incorrect. A skeuomorph is a UI element that mimics the behavior of it's real world counterpart. Whether it's styled realistically, or minimally doesn't change that. For example, the calculator app in iOS. Both the version in, say iOS5 and iOS7 are skeuorphic interfaces as they are both emulating a real physical calculator with an LED read out and buttons that you press. They are just *visually styled* differently...flat design vs. realistic design. The cited articles used to contrast flat design with skeuomorphism are not well written articles and abuse the term skeuomorph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C300:C34E:BD56:F48F:64DE:5F42 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the section containing a list of colours used valuable to anyone? It really doesn't belong unless there's also some description of why these particular colours are chosen; if there's a theory behind their selection (e.g., matching intensities) that's interesting and of relevance to someone trying to understand what the whole article is about. Otherwise… whatever; it's just a list of cute but essentially irrelevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.214.208 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's gone in a puff of smoke. Diego (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite isn't a good example of flat design, particularly because of all those translucent effects everywhere. Actually, it's not flat design at all. Even Windows 8 isn't completely flat. Microsoft describes it's design as being "beyond flat design"^[1] and Apple doesn't mention the term "flat" once on it's Yosemite preview page.^[2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfishSeahorse (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, Material Design is also a bad example - in fact it is the exact opposite, as it utilizes a Z-axis with drop shadows.^[3]Dikuno (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't completely understand flat UI, but why would being flat and having effects like translucency and shadows be mutually exclusive? Flat UI is a movement away from representing elements using real world analogs and sparkles and 3D-everything. Anyway, it's really just a genericization of recent design trends. There's no defining usage of flat UI alone. I've taken down the factual accuracy tag, as I think this is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freebullets (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Both Apple and Google use effects (animations, translucency, and shadows) to create depth, which is quite the opposite of flat. Therefore neither Yosemite nor Lollipop are good examples of flat design.—SelfishSeahorse (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'flat' in 'flat design' is not literal. It's simply a 'more minimalistic visual approach' than what we've been used to. We call it 'flat design' but it's hardly flat. It's just that elements of dimensions are rendered much more stylistically and subtly than we're used to in the past with more realistic visual approaches. Material Design and iOS7 are both absolutely 'flat design' in comparison to their predecessors. That they use subtle gradients, shadows and the like doesn't make them not flat (nor, by the way, does it mean they aren't skeuomporphic...a UI can be both visual styled as 'flat design' yet contain plenty of skeuomorphs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:C300:C34E:BD56:F48F:64DE:5F42 (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been studying a bit into flat design and would like to add a section on the history of flat design and its emergence into popular web/app design. Any thoughts or opinions why I should not add this section? --Dnlgthro (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The simple styling allows flat design to look good across various applications and screen sizes."

What exactly does "look good" mean in any absolute sense? I think this sentence should either be removed or replaced by something less subjective.

81.140.177.130 (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Flat Design got its new version in late 2014 called Flat 2.O" Is Flat Design a product? Intellectual property? Why is it a proper noun? That statement is made without any context. And it's formatted strangely with an capital "O" instead of a zero. --Navstar (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table comparing various versions of the Google Chrome logo is missing one of the images. Looking through the page history, I see that a bot removed it because the file lacks a non-free use rationale for this page. An IP then got into an edit war with the bot in an attempt to restore it. Presumably an appropriate non-free use rationale should be added to the file so that it can be used on this page, but comparing with the other versions of the logo on this page, I'm not sure they're correct either. They claim those logos are in the public domain because they're simple geometry ineligible for copyright, using Template:PD-shape. I'm not sure that's true, and even if it was, those logos should probably use Template:PD-textlogo instead.

I'm going to attempt to fix the problem with the original logo's non-free use rationale and restore the image to the page, but I'm less sure what to do about the other two. Rablari Dash (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's so ugly. I liked how satisfying the 90s-2000s websites were, their buttons looked like physical objects, like the buttons on a remote. The new late 2010s-2020s is now flat and it looks fake I want to sue whoever thought this was a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.165.189 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I agree. It would be great if major organizations would give us options to change how the interface looks. 209.221.91.105 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the talk page? Rudyon (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Requium242 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Requium242 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]