From my perspective there are 2 ways to categorize digital interactions according to someone’s generation: based on physical-digital association and visual-action association. For example in our generation, it’s the floppy disk as a save button that we only associate visually, not based on familiarity with the actual physical object (like it was for those people from the 80s); it’s a visual-to-action conditioning right from when we used windows 95 as kids. Similar to a language, where we grow up hearing words contextually and consistently to later retain in memory the “sound” of a word associated with its usage, rather than the original latin usage of a word. It’s an evolutionary development. So is skeuomorphism. Skeuomorphism is the present; it’s the transition.
You may argue about a world “one day” where the physical-to-digital associations would have changed. A whole population where no one remains with the current-day associations to the physical world. There will still be some sort of transition, right? This is where I believe understanding physical design trends go hand in hand with moving trends in digital design, UI/UX design. For as long as our physical world is our first point of contact, we will always instinctively and intuitively seek to familiarize our digital space based on our physical interactions. An observation of the current world shows us a “Minimalist” trend in the physical space and hence also the digital space, where abstracted and stripped down elements have become increasingly popular (flat icons e.g.). A speculation of the future world and future possible trends in physical design may give us more insight into subsequent future trends in the digital space. I believe that will always ring true, in relativity the digital will mimic the physical. After some research and some self entitled speculation into when the digital space will become our first mode of contact, I decided it was too far into the future and hence too hard to decide what the interface will be like. We have to realize that even when we say “everything is becoming digital” we have to account for and not conveniently forget a LOT of big/small, significant/insignificant physical interactions that form the crux of our day to day lives. Unless we’re somehow evolving towards a non-existent physical human form (literally, not spiritually), we will ALWAYS have a good number of physical elements in our lives that just cannot be recreated and fulfilled digitally, and shouldnt be either. For as long as this is the case, skeuomorphism will always be relevant. It may just relatively differ in application and extent with passing generations, but never zero. So the question is, how many more experiences are we “shifting” to the digital space? This although a large and seemingly unfathomable quantity at the moment, is still a finite number of things. With all things that co-exist physically and digitally there will be a link to ease human interaction among media.
When the physical counterpart of a specific interaction changes, the drasticity of the change will decide how smooth the digital transition is. Which is why it’s always preferred to make incremental changes in a user experience to ease the user into it. A lot of skeuomorph-ised digital interactions are meant to be suggestive of an analogous physical action for a specific process. The context of skeuomorphism with a smart watch showing time like a mechanical watch is with a different intention than skeuomorphism applied to the “search” icon shaped like a magnifying glass. In the first case the purpose is exactly the same, they're both to tell time. But in the second case, the icon is just suggestive of a function that needs to be fulfilled digitally, and isn't mirroring but rather deriving from the magnifying glass’ real world use case.
In music, we see instruments transitioning too. We see a lot of skeuomorphic instances on digital musical experiences. An interesting case to look at is hybrid products that mix digital and physical interfaces. It is important to understand why some things were made digital while some things were kept physical. Whether these factors are based on efficiency of the new system, or whether it’s a transitional requirement to ease users. As a musician into both physical and digital design, I understand the necessity to find the right balance. These micro experiences can really make or break the overall creative music experience. It can open doors for inclusivity in design, and allow for differently abled individuals to possibly experience music in ways they otherwise couldnt. This is just one example, but I can clearly see how the bridge between physical and digital design through skeuomorphism can bring about positive interactions and experiences among people; when done right.
Comments