A reboot of @Timer by http://dribbble.com/drbarnard. I've been working on cleaning up the UI, making sure affordances are best utilized and that we don't stray from the general aesthetic of the new iOS.
Also been conceptualizing a better way of showing elapsed time. Just some fun; not a serious v3.0 at this point.
The screenshot shows the transition from old to new. Link to the 1:1 screen attached.
5 months ago
I much prefer the earlier version. The buttons appear clickable, the contrast and depth delineate hierarchy and the text is more legible.
I don't disagree with a single point @Eli Schiff (other than liking the old style better of course), but I just don't think any of them are required to drive usability.
Glad you agree, though I'm a bit confused. Those are some of the core components and central principles of usability in UI design.
@Eli Schiff I don't see any mention of the points you raised. In fact, this reboot more closely adheres to what is written three (cleaner with less visible clutter). Also, those points are raised by two people in the field. What you'll find with scientific debate is that even then, not many seem to agree. Also, there's always going to be a subjective component to all of this, which is beyond argument (can only argue the objective). The true measure is a usability test; that is, to actually collect some real data. Outside of that, we can go around all day on what is *theoretically* better (based only on best practices).
You should check out better sources of info regarding UIs, guys like Donald Norman, Alan Cooper, Kim Vicente to name a few.
The points I raised certainly apply to the principles: clickable buttons pertain to the Feedback Principle, contrast and depth pertain to the Structure Principle and the legible text pertains to the Visibility Principle.
While you are correct that the new aesthetic is visually more simple (Simplicity Principle), the principle of simplicity doesn't necessarily imply a stark UI, as in iOS7, will be superior to an ornamental one. An ornamental user interface is inherently and objectively more capable of providing affordance than a flat one. As humans we live in a dimensional world, there isn't adequate justification for throwing out the principles of our visual experience for the sake of minimalism. Certainly the addition of animation to UI design in small doses will benefit usability, but it cannot on its own replace visual affordances. This is especially true for interfaces that rely on tactile interaction models (mobile UI) but is also true for mouse-based interaction.
I agree there's some degree of subjectivity to this, but overall we can objectively determine specific traits of UIs that lead to better usability. My main point is that artistry in UI is not superfluous, nor is it clutter, but rather a humanizing and simultaneously functional element. If you're interested, I've written about this here.
In any case, thanks for those references! I'll definitely be checking them out. Interestingly, considering Cooper is a usabillity expert, the articles on his site aren't clickable on their titles :P
Jakob Nielsen, who pioneers web interfaces and works alongside Norman, also has a site that's questionable on the easy of use front. Puzzling I know and a point that was raised by a few of my professors.
Looking great! Can’t wait to give it a spin. Using circles for the timers makes a lot of sense. I like the lightness of the design.
The old version looks sexy. the new version looks nice but boring. Also, the old bottom nav looks very clickable whereas the new nav doesn't read as buttons.
Love this, feels so fresh, vibrant and uplifting.
New design is amazing. Yes, the ornamentation and detail might be lost - but honestly, a lot of it is noise. The core features of the app remain in tact. Its much classier, fresher, modern and generally far easier on the eye.
I agree wholeheartedly with this new design aesthetic.
@Marc Edwards ✎ Bjango, @Robert Cooper, @Craig 'iPhaze' Philips
Thanks a lot guys! It seems there is still a large segment that is resistant to the new aesthetic and all issues aside regarding subjective design preferences, it seems there is still also a reluctance of dropping certain details as they are still seen as crucial components to the actual functionality of the UI (like buttons that look like buttons for example). I don't have usability data on such things, but I do know software is evolving at an insane rate. It took use thousands of years to perfect tools for hunting and agriculture. The net and the shovel was not the first shot at catching fish and digging holes for plants. They are simply the best tools that won out over the other ones. Look at flight and all the wacky designs that failed to successfully lift (and keep afloat) an airplane?
We are still very much in the infancy of UI, so it pains me to see so many resistance to making changes in the paradigms set some three decades ago.
@William Szilveszter I think the resistance is due to the fact that there wasn't an apparent rationale for changing paradigms within the realm of usability. On the other hand, there certainly was a rationale coming from a marketing perspective. If there were a manifesto of sorts on the 'principles of flat contrastless digital design' then maybe there would be less resistance.
about 1 month ago
keyboard shortcuts: ← previous shot → next shot L or F like
Show and tell for designers
What are you working on? Dribbble is a community of designers sharing screenshots of their work, process, and projects.
Copyright © 2009–2013 Dribbble LLC. All screenshots © their respective owners. Shipped from Salem, Mass. USA.
Follow Dribbble on Twitter