the trouble with skeuomorphs…

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013
Apple's skeuomorphic calendar design

apple’s faux leather calendar ©apple

a skeuomorph on iPhone

dialing a number on a digital device
©learnforeverblog.blogspot.co.uk

skeuomorph digital book

pretending that a digital book is made of paper ©gearlive.com

“Skeumorph” is a term I only came across recently – and like many such terms, once you learn of its existence, it ties up a set of things you already knew about, in a bundle that gives you a better grasp on that issue than you had before. Once aware of it, you start to see it everywhere.

Skeumorph is defined by the online Oxford Dictionary as: an object or feature which imitates the design of a similar artefact in another material. The current vogue for use of this term is mostly related to the design of digital interfaces. A good example is Apple’s Calendar app with its faux leather effect (the first image – note the torn margin where it is suggested that a paper page has been ripped out). Much liked by Steve Jobs, it apparently reproduces the interior trim of his private jet. It seems that Jonathan Ive may well be about to dispense with this kind of thing.

I do not deny that there is something ‘cute’ about skeuomorphs, and I suppose that – as computers became capable of producing realistic faux glass, or steel, or wood – I was as wowed by these novel effects as anyone else. There are people out there who will defend skeuomorphism as being helpful and pleasant. Counter arguments can be made on aesthetic grounds that seem to me reminiscent of the modernist architectural creed that ‘form should follow function’ – a position that I am increasingly sympathetic to. However, I would like to advance a different argument that it is beyond the realm of aesthetics, for I believe that ‘skeumorphs’ are not only hampering desirable developments in some areas, but are potentially being used by some corporations against the common interest.

An example of a ‘skeuomorphic’ mindset being misapplied is, I believe, in the various ebook systems (that I have experienced). I have expressed my support for ebooks elsewhere, however, my hope for what ebooks could become is currently being frustrated by the reality of what ebooks are. What irks me most is ‘navigating’ the text of an ebook. Animations of pages turning in mimicry of a paper book are all good and well – though a clear skeuomorphism – but they do nothing to help with moving around the text of an ebook. You can ‘bookmark’ a page, and you can slide through the pages, and you can go to a contents page – each a skeuomorphic example of paper book mimicry – however, none of these actually provide the comparable functionality of a paper book. In a paper book, a bookmark allows instant access to the bookmarked page because it is always at hand: the ebook equivalent is only visible if you are on the page it marks, otherwise it has to be located on a special bookmark page. The page slider on an ebook attempts to provide us with something akin to leafing through a paper book, but, without the physical ‘feedback’, I find it almost unusable. After sliding back and forth a few times, I mostly resort to swiping forward one page at a time to find what I am looking for. An ebook’s content page can be accessed without losing your place in the book, but if you choose to go from there to some other part of the ebook, then you will only be able to return to your original position if you had had the presence of mind to bookmark that page. This problem could easily be avoided if the ‘go back’ button available on all browsers were present – but, for some reason, rather than using the technology commonly used on computing devices, the designers of these ebook systems (the one’s I’ve experienced certainly) are so committed to the skeuomorphic project of mimicking a paper book, that they don’t feel the reader needs one. Imagine how difficult a browser would be to use without a ‘go back’ button?

In a bid to mimic paper books – no doubt with the laudable view of not frightening off traditional readers – the designers of these ebook systems are doing something like roping stuffed horses to the bonnet of a motor car in the hope of easing the transition from carriages. I suggest that ebooks are going to remain clumsy and frustratingly unmanageable until we stop thinking of them as paper books, and instead begin to explore the true nature of what they actually are and could be.

Another attempt to treat ebooks as if they were paper books is Amazon’s proposal to allow the lending and reselling of ‘used’ digital books. This is skeuomorphism applied on a conceptual level. Similar attempts are being made across various digital media. These attempts seem to me to have more to do with preserving the business models and commercial hierarchies that existed before the digital revolution, than on satisfying any need in the consumer. What is interesting is which characteristics of the physical objects being superseded are being selected for skeuomorphic ‘simulation’. These corporations wish to avail themselves of the advantages of digital objects: their ability to be distributed across the internet and to be produced in unlimited numbers – thus avoiding distribution, warehousing and printing/manufacturing costs – but wish to pretend that digital objects are like physical ones in that they cannot effortlessly be cloned by whoever wishes to do so, and thus to be obtained free of charge from the internet. This initiative on the part of Amazon to give us back the facility to lend and sell our books has nothing to do with benefitting their readers, but only to further extend their control over our ebooks.

Ebooks and other digital objects ‘want to be free’* – that is their inherent nature. I would suggest that any attempts on our part, to try and impose on them the restrictions inherent in what it is they are replacing, are bound to fail. Perhaps the little skeuomorphisms of Apple’s faux leather calendar may need to be ditched because, in part, they lead to the repressive skeumorphisms being perpetrated by corporations like Apple and Amazon. All revolutions are painful for the people who experience them, but they are only worth enduring because of a general perceived need or desire for change. For the digital revolution to justify the chaos that it is wreaking on consumers and producers of art and entertainment, it must be to the advantage of all. If the promise of these new digital forms is going to be fulfilled we need to resist skeuomorphs.

*how we recompense the creators is another issue, and one I will try and address in another post

After this post was substantially written, I did come across this skeuomorphic ebook system that goes some way to assuaging my gripes about ebook navigation – and I am including it for fairness…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments Yet

steve jobs…

Thursday, October 6th, 2011

steve jobs © Apple

I was literally woken this morning by the radio coming on announcing the death of Steve Jobs. I was shocked. Of course we all knew that he was ill, but I didn’t imagine that he would die so soon.

I came across my first mac in 1984 (all these ancient recollections are a bit imprecise when it comes to dates etc) when I worked for British Telecom as a development manager in their computer games division Firebird/Rainbird. Part of this operation was the then cutting edge desktop publishing software running on a number of macintosh computers – beige cubes with small black and white screens with attached laser printers. It wasn’t long before I became seduced by these little computers with their mice and graphical interface. So that, when I left to go and work on my own, I bought myself a Mac SE, with its capacious 1MByte hard disk and some few K of RAM for the princely sum of £2500 – not trivial now, and a fortune then.

I used this computer for years – or slightly better specced ones that I upgraded to – and I stuck with Apple (through laziness, habit, or misplaced loyalty) even when all around me PCs were blooming into riotous colour while I was still ghettoed in black and white. For a period, I worked on a PC and found its operating system simply too ugly, cumbersome and clunky for comfort. And then, Steve Jobs returned to Apple and began the amazing reincarnation of those principles that had drawn me to Macs in the first place.

So, I speak as someone who has lived within the Apple ecosystem for my whole working life. At one point I was loyal to the company the way some are to a football team – even more passionately so if they’re constantly losing. Then Apple rose and rose until my niche interest became a global phenomena. Now I am far more suspicious of Apple because, having grown larger, they are often one of the worst bullies in the playground. Nevertheless, I still cleave to the Apple ecosystem because, for me – and a large component of this may simply be my deep familiarity with it, though, in truth, it has changed and is changing a lot – it provides me with kit that is, most of the time, ‘transparent’ to me. I am not interested in the computers themselves except as windows into the computable world. I just want to be able to reach in and make and explore digital objects with as little awareness of the portal through which I pass. Beyond this primary consideration, I am also grateful that Apple kit does not disfigure the world I live in. For example, I work at a desk in the centre of my livingspace and so it is not inconsequential that my computing kit shouldn’t be some monstrous carbuncle *grin*

For all his reportedly unpleasant characteristics, it seems to me that Steve Jobs has striven always to make the interface between ourselves and the digital world as ergonomically functional as he could and thus he has helped make that world a natural extension of ourselves. Considering how much we now live in that world, that seems to me no mean legacy…

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »