I agree. But is interface design wholly in the realm of art? It's not a case of "this art will be viewed by a thousand people and some will get it and some won't." It's a case of "hundreds of thousands of paying customers need to know where on the screen to touch to open a new tab."

One of the things I appreciated about the past 20 years of Web design is that a set of traditions and conventions slowly formed, such that a user of one site could quickly figure out how to work the buttons or menus of another site.

Though there are some conventions now in flat and mobile design (like the hamburger icon to symbolize the menu), the steps one must learn to trigger actions on different devices -- touch that symbol over there, swipe to there, tap with two fingers here -- often feels more like some sort of conjuring of a spell than operating a device.

"But is interface design wholly in the realm of art?"

You're right, it isn't completely but every interface has an element of art. Interfaces exist in the art world as well, for example architecture and sculpture can be "used" as well as looked at.

Business design introduces another wrinkle but I would argue it's impact should be considerably less. A consumer should have the same needs/wants as a "user".

Speaking to your comment about conjuring spells .. I too grow weary of "swipe interfaces" that expect you to fondle the screen in order to discern how to navigate. It's very gimmicky and only had a place when the first touch screens were being rolled out. How that touch interfaces have matured it should be obvious (and no not a overlay instructional walk-through tutorial) how to use your app/website.

I would disagree. I think good design is timeless. It's why eras where design was preeminent like "art-deco" and "Hellenic Greece" still resonate so strongly with audiences today.

I think design aspires to a Platonic ideal of simplicity, function and form, but that the fashions of the time influence how that aspiration is expressed.

It's why Steve Jobs and his vision were so successful in my opinion, paring the complexity of modern consumer electronics and attendant functionality back to what a user actually wants and needs from a device. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear why (re: simplicity, not so much Steve Jobs) as I use external opinions to shape and refine my own.

"good design is timeless"

Then why does design move on, evolve or change about-face? Also how do you know that your design is good, and will stand the test of time? I think what you're witnessing is design that still appeals to your modern tastes. This I attribute more to luck than some superior logic.

"design aspires to a Platonic ideal of simplicity, function and form"

If you believe that than you're throwing out an entire category of design that isn't simple. Some design is incredibly complex ..even messy yet at the time it's considered beautiful and rich because it reflects and invokes human emotions of the time.

Simplicity can stand the test of time because it lacks elements that we associate with the time which can fall out of taste. That doesn't make it better, it just makes it ... simple.

The best design reflects the current tastes of your audience, it does not need to be timeless or even make sense to future generations. Good design evokes an emotional response and that response is dictated by many factors which take into account context.

Trends and fads move on, but great design is timeless. Great design solves a problem completely.

The Eames Lounge Chair was designed in 1956. At no point since then has it looked dated. And it never will. It's timeless (and comfortable as well). http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/lounge-seating/...

Its difficult to make timeless work with software because the capabilities and mediums change so rapidly. But we'll get there eventually.

As great as the Eames Lounge Chair is, I think it looks like it was created in the 1950s. A better example of a timeless piece of design would be the Barcelona Chair, which predates even the Eames Chair. It still looks modern, nearly a century after it was created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_chair

Add Le Corbusier's LC2 (to the eames and barcelona chair) and and you have a few timeless designs, all from mid-century.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41a30HNuKeL.jpg

To the people discounting timeless design: yes most of contemporary industrial design is disposable, but some pieces from Braun and Apple will be considered classics.

"And it never will"

I would never pay for a Picasso or a Van Gogh to hang in my house (because it's would be exorbitant and) because it doesn't evoke positive emotions when I look at it. Norman Rockwell does just that and he has since I was a kid, does that make his art better than Picasso's? Not to most people.

Just because ideas about how a chair can be designed remain popular doesn't mean that it stops being subjective.

Design can vary in terms of how "good" it is but even eras like art-deco will go through periods where it resonates more strongly with people. The factors for that can be any multitude of things.

Even using Steve Jobs as an example doesn't work. The design of the iPod/iPhone has changed drastically in just 10 years. I don't consider my 2nd generation iPod as "timeless". I can admit that it was great 10 years ago but today it's not so much.

That being said I do believe there's elements of science in design. The golden ratio perhaps or using concentric circles. It seems plausible that those could be less taxing on our vision to look at.

I don't know if that applies to flat design though.

"That being said I do believe there's elements of science in design. The golden ratio perhaps or using concentric circles."

I agree here too, but I don't think these concepts are enough to influence every generation of design.

I think it's wonderful that there are artists creating right now that have never heard of prior art or scientific principles like the golden ratio. Just think how hard it would be to create innovative art with an entire list of per-requisites and scientific requirements.

I would disagree. I think it can be rationalized, trends reflect the changing tastes of society - and the changing tastes of society reflect how society itself is changing. I think for a lot of art and fashion, the trends can be rationalized from anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspectives. For those ignorant about certain industries however, i'm sure trends can appear arbitrary. (and a lot of people try to follow what's fashionable without understanding why it's fashionable)

iOS 7 for example could have represented how our society has become sufficiently technologically savvy enough to not need the visual clues that comes with skeumorphism, e.g. people don't need the notes app to look like it's real-world counterpart for them to know that you take notes with the notes app. We as a society are so used to touch screens these days that we don't need skeumorphism anymore to remind us how things work.

Of course, there will never be a final design aesthetic as society and technology are constantly evolving. Yes, flat is just a trend, but it wasn't arbitrary.

> the trends can be rationalized from anthropological, sociological, or psychological perspectives

I'm not an inherent skeptic of the worth of the soft humanities, but it's pretty far fetched to claim that these fields can offer anything like a unified or even non-contentious view on design elements, or anything else for that matter. If anything, the virtue of these fields is based on the multiplicity of interpretation they offer. They ain't Newtonian physics, that's for sure.

No, the idea is that there are reasons for trends that have to do with people, culture and society. The fact that trends are a product of our very complex society means that the explanations for these trends can be studied from an academic perspective. Aesthetic trends aren't created by programmers, that's for sure.