I don't think flat design is the issue (although I agree that it's getting to be as overdone as skeuomorphism back in the early '00s). The real issue is that it's discarded all of our carefully built up visual design language (ie. what makes things feel 'intuitive') in favour of a churning mishmash of beautiful new impediments to understanding. The disappearance of top menus. Inscrutable icons instead of text. Hamburger menus, arcane X-finger-slide-from-Y-edge style secret handshakes, it just keeps getting worse.

> Looks like a generic Linux distro. Am I the only one getting "visual fatigue" over seeing flat design?

I have `comment fatigue` over flat design complaints.

I have meta-comment fatigue and I hate myself.

Fatigue comments considered harmful.

I feel like you missed the point of the post. It’s less about the aesthetics and more about the fact that someone used Unity, a game development tool, to simulate and OS UI.

Thanks for that, I was trying to figure out what "Unity" was in this context, given that Ubuntu had something with the same name as it's main UI for about 7 years...

Interestingly enough, Unity the game engine has been around for 5 years longer than Unity the DE

There are several things called Unity, which I suppose is why the game engine is often referred to as Unity3d.

Yeah, same here.

Like, what's the point of an "operating system UI" in a Linux desktop environment?

But then, I also don't get the point of doing that in some game engine called Unity.

I mean, is that a viable way to do a desktop?

You're literally on Hacker news. Not everything needs to be viable. Fun is enough.

I guess.

Maybe it's just satire about flashy but useless eye candy.

When you're running lots of VMs, you end up using as little RAM as possible. It used to bug the hell out of me that Whonix came with KDE. Now finally they switched to XFCE. My Debian VMs get 1-2GB, and some script-laden sites can freeze them.

As stated in the link (although it mightn't be clear if you're not a game dev), it's so you can make games with operating system UI, such as Emily Is Away[1].

The linked one is particularly polished; it would have taken ages to implement all those little details.

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/417860/Emily_is_Away/

Ah. I missed that. Thanks.

The point of doing an operating system UI in a game engine is so that you can use that operating system UI within games written in that engine!

There's several examples - Simulacra, Emily was Away, Hypnospace Outlaw - that use the interface of an (imaginary) computer as their primary framing device.

Or it could be useful in an immersive-sim type game where there happen to be computers you can interact with; you could immediately see the applications in some kind of hacking-themed game.

Huh. I never got into gaming. Except that my life has become more and more LARP.

So yeah, I get it. Of course there'd be computers in games.

But once you have an OS in a game, why not just run a VM? Or would that use too many resources?

I thought the point of posting it to HN was about the comments, about the deep hostility to open source and sharing work/code that is prevalent in the game dev community.

Pin striped OSX, now that was a time to be alive.

That and brushed metal. Such thrill.

Stitched leather baby: https://www.simplehelp.net/images/ical_lion_skin/img00.png

UI designs come and go, but this point of OSX design will always look unbelievably good.

Disgusting.

I respect your opinion. There is some (a lot) of the skeuomorphism of the time, and even in parts of the old OSX that where terrible, but in my own personal opinion there was some good too.

I don't know why you mentioned Linux when it has a ton of window managers which provide real alternatives to any specific UI design. Window Maker looks different from fvwm95 looks different from IceWM looks different from <insert tiling WM here> looks different from TWM... and all of those window managers are usable, to the extent applications don't care what they're running in and the OS itself doesn't care about window managers at all.

So you can have the UI of your dreams, or at least a UI which is honestly different from what you're railing against, if you just open your eyes a little and see beyond the defaults.

But ICCCM!

This https://xpq4.sourceforge.io/ is for https://q4os.org/ which is based on http://trinitydesktop.org/ which in turn is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Desktop_Environment_3 but adapted to more modern systems.

Rip it apart, integrate into your system, be happy. Maybe do it in a generalized way and "show HN". But why? It is out there, more or less ready to use.

But to be honest, i think this nostalgy is overrated. It is not good, just what you have been used to for a long time. Because you had no other options, except of using alternative windows shells which broke with every update, and most users shied away from such deep modding anyways.

Personally i can't stand the XP look, but can live with "classic" which is based on that Windows2000/W98 style. But it is too dark! And i dislike some of the common Icons and Widgets.

Anyways, i'm using something "Material" since about 20 years now, with lighter color palettes, but not that low contrast stuff which is so common now. Very small padding, and small but visible borders. You can tune and modify that into blissful oblivion, and have it applied across QT3/4/5 and GTK2/3.

It's up to you.

Or choose just another Distro because of the nice desktop backround!1!!

(Hop! Hop! Hop!)

> I just feel like we need a trend change.

Why would you like a change? So you want to see the common UIs constantly redesigned every few years?

I think Material UI is a good baseline for most applications, especially those who do not have the resources to design their own UI

Well, it literally is metaphorical cancer, in that it's a case of part (interface design) of a system (software development) going rogue and sabotaging both the function it's supposed to carry out and system as a whole in a effort to enrich itself, but it's not that great a metaphore.

Flat design is more simple than skeuomorphism, almost by definition.

What you seem to want is complexity.

There's plenty of middle ground between the current extreme flatness and, say, MacOS X Tiger. An interface with a simple 3D bevel look (such as in Motif or the toolkit in NeXTStep) is no more skeuomorphic than than a flat interface, especially not considering how prevalent touchscreen controls are today.

Flatness to the current point of minimalism is, to me, very taxing and complex. Things blend together so much it's hard to tell where one UI element begins and another one ends. I frequently misclick in Windows 10/Office 365 even though I've used it for years now, simply because the flatness makes me misinterpret the layout and function of the UI.

I miss the look of MacOS X Tiger so much. It was a thing of beauty.

Complexity is good if it allows you to see affordances more easily.

Maybe buttons should look different from non-clickable icons. That requires some complexity.

I don't disagree that complexity can be good! I was just correcting the "longing for that simplicity" statement, which was incorrect.

Flat design is way too simple.

I liked the 3Dness of the buttons in Windows 95-98.

You knew if something was clickable right away.

Easy isn’t always so simple.

Correct, but flat design is objectively simpler than skeuomorphism.

I don't even mind skeuomorphism, I quite like it, but it's just bullheaded-error that has people claiming that it's simpler than flat design.

Complexity isn't a sin or something.