I wrote the tweets featured in the article and thought I'd chime in with a few more thoughts...
I think flat design is inclusive design, that is, it's not hoity-toity, impossible-to-execute, beautifully 3D-rendered and textured expensive design. It's simple and clean, sparse and understandable. In the most simple application of "flat design" trends, it's essentially one step up from a wireframe: pick a color scheme on some color scheme website, download a 200-pack of glyph icons and BAM you've moved from an abstract wireframe to something a little more sophisticated and approachable. Friendly colors, nice spacing, good typography, and you've got something.
Yes, I am saying it is quicker to execute a "flat" design than it is to execute a skeuomorphic, highly-stylized, deeply-textured design. A product manager or developer without a lot of design experience could probably use some flat design trends and one nice font and put something together that doesn't look like horse shit. I don't think that same product manager could spend an equal amount of time trying to mimic a beautifully-crafted and textured interface and have anywhere near the same luck. Using flat design trends gets you to some sort of product design quicker than if you're spending 20 minutes crafting a 5-color gradient to emulate the perfect lighting of a semi-glossy aluminum rod for your button texture.
No, I am not saying that by simply using "flat" design trends you are able to bypass all processes and thinking surrounding good whitespace, grouping, contrast, alignment, typography, usability, etc., but because "flat" design elements are graphically simpler it lets the content of the design show through and not be muddled by textures or skeuomorphic execution flaws, so your design message is clearer and cleaner by default.
Non-designers or "mediocre designers" seem to be flocking to these flat design trends the same way they flock to the excellent Bootstrap framework: because it's a simple way to jumpstart a product design out of a blank canvas or browser window into something that, even when starting out, looks pretty decent.
I suspect a lot of people will start to attribute bad designs to flat design because of its lower barrier to entry. There are likely to be a lot more people who are less than mediocre, in both visual and interaction design skills, applying it to poorly crafted and planned out sites and apps, and sadly the thing that will stand out the most is that they used a flat design, not that they simply designed poorly.
I'm the author of the blog post so I'll weigh in too :-)
I agree with you @lucisferre, and for this reason I think the flat design trend will become obsolescent at a faster rate than most design trends usually do.
I also think that animation is going to become "the next big thing" and will be the primary differentiator between "meh" and "wow" apps.
I have by my desk Henry Dreyfuss's Symbol Sourcebook [1972 edition]. It contains symbols he collected over a lifetime - he died in '72. Rococo is the fad [Perlis says it comes before rubble]. Flat design dominates when clear communication becomes more important than signalling via fashion. There's a reason stop signs don't have gradient fills.
I think it's here to stay in some form. If you think of UI's as a language, it seems a natural simplification of that language. Simplification is a normal and natural thing to happen to a language.
I disagree. Language is about expressiveness, simplification in language is about reducing expressiveness which is neither normal nor natural, nor a good thing. Basically, thinking of UI as a language in order to make sweeping statements about simplification is a really bad idea.
I think we're talking about simplification in different contexts. Overtime symbols get simplified. That doesn't restrict the manner in which those symbols may be combined. Nor does it mean that, people won't embellish when they feel the need.
Your post is remarkably clear despite your inability to choose a typeface or set kerning. Using standardized symbols is the way we communicate.
Flat design is a dogma, but nearly so dependent upon revelation and faith. A five colored gradient emulating perfect lighting of a semi-glossy aluminum rod is carving saints into the tympanium - semiotics for the initiated and confirmation of one's devotion to sacred values. The word "perfect" gives the language game away.
What I appreciate about so-called flat design is that's low-key by nature, and by not calling attention to itself (no bezels, few gradients, border colors, etc.) it can - when used correctly - get out of the way and let the user focus on content. E.g. https://dispatch.io
An example of the opposite is so-called good design, where skilled designers set out to make a visual statement and, in the process, obfuscate the content. E.g. this site, where every article is more than half-buried by a ginormous image: http://www.fastcodesign.com
> "get out of the way and let the user focus on content. E.g. https://dispatch.io
There's just not enough content on that site - The 'learn more' button barely explains what the service does. Even a few decent screenshots can go a long way.
I agree, but an application is not all content, it's also a machine, and the interface needs to be intuitive to use and separate it self from the content.
If depth, texture and so on can be used to convey functionality, but isn't in the name of fashion, then it's form over function IMO.
I think flat design is inclusive design, that is, it's not hoity-toity, impossible-to-execute, beautifully 3D-rendered and textured expensive design. It's simple and clean, sparse and understandable. In the most simple application of "flat design" trends, it's essentially one step up from a wireframe: pick a color scheme on some color scheme website, download a 200-pack of glyph icons and BAM you've moved from an abstract wireframe to something a little more sophisticated and approachable. Friendly colors, nice spacing, good typography, and you've got something.
Yes, I am saying it is quicker to execute a "flat" design than it is to execute a skeuomorphic, highly-stylized, deeply-textured design. A product manager or developer without a lot of design experience could probably use some flat design trends and one nice font and put something together that doesn't look like horse shit. I don't think that same product manager could spend an equal amount of time trying to mimic a beautifully-crafted and textured interface and have anywhere near the same luck. Using flat design trends gets you to some sort of product design quicker than if you're spending 20 minutes crafting a 5-color gradient to emulate the perfect lighting of a semi-glossy aluminum rod for your button texture.
No, I am not saying that by simply using "flat" design trends you are able to bypass all processes and thinking surrounding good whitespace, grouping, contrast, alignment, typography, usability, etc., but because "flat" design elements are graphically simpler it lets the content of the design show through and not be muddled by textures or skeuomorphic execution flaws, so your design message is clearer and cleaner by default.
Non-designers or "mediocre designers" seem to be flocking to these flat design trends the same way they flock to the excellent Bootstrap framework: because it's a simple way to jumpstart a product design out of a blank canvas or browser window into something that, even when starting out, looks pretty decent.