> Unfortunately, the apologists fail to recognize that there are two likely consequences of this approach: (1) the user is unable to transfer his or her existing knowledge of computer interaction, and (2) the software becomes needlessly subject to the limitations of the physical device.
I remember the bad old days where the Mac calendar would only let you flip between pages, because that's how real calendars worked. All your contacts were grouped by first letter, because Rolodex. It was a death by a million cuts where nothing worked as well as it could have because it had to exactly emulate the crummy real world thing it looked like. No thanks - that's the aspect of skeuomorphism that gave it such a horrible reputation.
If you want to make my calendar look like it has leather trim, fine. So be it. Just don't make it act like an old-fashioned desk calendar instead of the special purpose database it really is.
I never understood why that became a dirty word in user interface design.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a calendar to look like a calendar. If someone comes up with a different paradigm that is better, then by all means do it, and let people decide if it's good.
But ever since skeuomorphism became an anti-buzz word, interfaces have been designed to be different just to be different, not to be better.