> Again the fashion for extreme flatness, with square icons and buttons that disappear into the background are shown to be counter productive and user hostile.

Any sources for this? I tend to share this sentiment, but have never really read too deeply into it.

> They might "look nice" to some lead designer, but they don't work as well.

To further this, I think it is important to acknowledge too that these design decisions are not made exclusively because they "look nice." There is value in "sameness" when you are competing with other products/brands/sites that have already established a certain style, convention or pattern. After all, we learn and orient ourselves by subconsciously comparing new experiences with ones we've already had. So when you experience similar patterns in a new interface, it drastically decreases the cognitive load in learning how to use it. To your point though, there is a fine line in how effectively you can push simplicity, and there are many subtle visual variables beyond the reductionist square button that could help to improve legibility of elements as distinct components that are largely ignored in current trends.

> Any sources for this?

The article?

I was about to add the same comment. I’m not sure why you are being downvoted.

Agreed 100%. For companies that appear to usually be data driven, the fetish for minimalism and removal of basic UI affordances in the pursuit of style has been a bit shocking.

the data points to other companies/products/projects doing it, and they seem to have customers, get funding, and still be in business. I don't even need to invoke the cynicism of "resume-driven-development" to get to that point, and I think that's probably as deep as some people go when justifying their design direction.

Well, NHS seems to have found that a text link (with an icon) is better than a button.

> We also found arrow icons highlight ‘action’ links for users wanting to find help. They're noticeable but, unlike buttons, users actually read the link.

I think it just depends, some things we think are UI affordances aren't, I'm not sure it's just minimalism vs not. Just that you gotta test.

Adobe is arguably the worst offender. They made their app icons look like entries in the periodic table. For marketing purpose, I suppose the scheme is very clever.

As part of the UI for something safety critical, yes. But when I'm using a browser and a toolbar is moved behind a hamburger menu, that's a tangible improvement in screen real-estate for the content that I'm using most of the time.