In defense of skeuomorphism
Part 2: How not to use it, or, Why Clinkle (already) needs a redesign
Skeuomorphism is becoming a dirty word in Silicon Valley.This series of posts will focus on why skeuomorphism is actually important in design, how it has been put to use in the past, and how you can use it to make your products more user-friendly.
In a recent article Paul Adams talked about the “Dribbblisation of Design” and the trend toward making gorgeous designs, screenshots, and concepts without considering user needs or underlying functions the design is trying to enable. Dribbble is a popular target for this criticism because of the community’s penchant for making one-off pieces focused on pixel-perfect realism.
Many designers in the community craft stunning visualizations and wireframes with a pixel-perfect level of realism—as well as a complete lack of usability. There is a good reason most of these interfaces don’t show up in functioning applications.
We live in an era when the making of such detailed and beautiful designs has been so democratized that anyone with a laptop, Photoshop, and a good eye can create what once only a master with special tools could. This trend is much like what happened with the Victorian ornamentation that was so popular in the late 1800s.
The Gilt Age
With the rise of the Industrial Revolution people could suddenly buy furniture, household goods, and clothing that before had been unattainable, as only the extremely wealthy could afford the intense labor required. Unsurprisingly, people who could then afford the new furniture wanted it to look like the objects formerly out of their reach. Every middle class worker could, if they so desired, own a gold leaf-covered table and chairs claiming in appearance to be straight out of Buckingham Palace.
It was a gold rush that resulted in a cheapening of the overall asthetic that the new middle class was desperate to embrace. Quickly the Victorian style of decor was disassociated from its implications of wealth and status, and the cheap “luxury” goods turned gaudy. It was a hyperinflation of a visual appeal brought about by ease of production and inexpensive materials. With its growing reputation as poor taste, combined with the onset of World War I, this interior decorating trend quickly died out.
Clinkle: A design divorced from function
Much like what happened with Victorian-era design, what we are seeing on sites like Dribbble and in apps like Clinkle is the rise of unessary ornamentation and animation purely because it is possible.
As I wrote in the first part of this series, skeuomorphism is an important design tool for bridging the familiar and the new to make a person comfortable with a new product or concept.
The first iPhone’s lock screen was the first touch screen many people had ever used. Therefore the unlock interaction required a visually instructive prompt, hence the very physical and metal-looking slide switch. Things have changed since then and iOS7. Touchscreens are commonplace. Swipes are typical gestures. With this new level of common understanding, the prompt only needs to hint at the necessary action, not teach people how to use a touchscreen. The result is simplified, less skeuomorphic. Apple has taken the training wheels off.
Clinkle, a much talked-about mobile payment app that has yet to launch after nearly two years of development, represents the new era of Victorian ornamentation. In this time of trending “flat” (or at least less skeuomorphic) UIs, Clinkle’s homepage sticks out like a sore thumb.
The app’s focus is to make it easy to pay people and stores for goods and services. Much like Square, Gopago, etc., the service ties to your credit card and bank account to become a gateway for your digital payments.
The app abounds with visual details that look absolutely gorgeous and sometimes astound (the holograms on the credit cards shimmer as the phone moves!).
These touches do add a certain amount of fit and finish but ultimately detract from the overall usability of the application. To start, animations take too long to complete, breaking down metaphors. (For example, tracking what exactly is happening as the “ATM” spits money out on the screen).
Or, look at their homescreen, which has very little useful visual information. You can’t tell who accepts Clinkle around you. You can’t see your most recent transactions. You don’t immediately know where to tap to find this information, either—the embossed leather C? Short of counting the bills displayed on the screen, you don’t even know how much money you have. It is visually dense but informationally light.
It is visually dense but informationally light.
Clinkle is in a tricky problem space and the current design of the app won’t help them win any users. As I mentioned above, skeuomorphism is helpful in a situation where you are introducing people to a new concept, technology, or behavior. In Clinkle’s case, they are trying to “fundamentally change the way people transact,” specifically, moving from physical to digital payments. With this legitimate rationale, I have faith that their approach is meant well, and they want to use skeuomorphism to help their users see a complicated new system in a familiar way. Instead, they have ended up with pure photorealism—beautiful lifelike images with no consideration for exactly what they want the design to enable.
DFX: Design for X
There is an term in the design world called Design for X, where X can be anything from usability, ease of transport, and aesthetics, to manufacturability. What’s important to remember is that you can never design for just one of these things, or you will end up with a lopsided product or service. Something visually arresting must also be manufacturable, be cost-effective, and, at the end of the day, accomplish the task for which it was designed. Clinkle is just one example of lopsided design.
It’s a hard ask, but I believe Clinkle needs to redesign their app. They need to catch up with where interface design is trending, certainly. But more critically, they need to make it a usable product for their future customers. When they finally release.
Edit:
Just today Square publicly released Square Cash, which allows a user to send money to anyone via email. Compare this interface with Clinkle’s homepage above. Both prompt more or less the same thing. Which one enables you to send money more quickly?
Thanks to @annikamatta for your editorial insights and wise additions.
