9

Nowadays, the UI are becoming more stylized, just like art has been since time immemorial. Is there a classification of art movements that serve specifically to group UI designs? For example, I can clearly see a difference between a 90's web page, a 2000's, and a 2010's one. Something like Impressionism, Realism, Art Deco,...

  • 1
    It seems like UX design would be the one that aligns to specific art movements instead of the other way around in my opinion. Of course, you could say that digital design/art overlaps with software interface design but I think these things tend to come and go in cycles (e.g. pixel art appears to be making yet another comeback). – Michael Lai Jan 26 '18 at 1:15
  • This is a fun thought. Are we witnessing eras of interactive design movements? If so, thirty years from now we will be buying discounted, oversized, coffee-table books from Barnes and Nobles: Skeumorphism, Flat Design, Material, Parallax, and Brutalism. – jhurley Jan 30 '18 at 17:31
4

There is a broad classification system for web functionality that can also be used to define different "artistic movements"- Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and theoretically in future, Web 3.0

It's reasonable to use this classification system for style, because, in so far as we have experienced to this point, there has always been at least some connection between available technologies and the style of the time.

Web 1.0

(Inception of web to approx. turn of the century)

Sample Websites

This has been described as the "read-only" era of the web [1,2]. Static pages, low levels of interaction. The aesthetics of this early phase were likely initially influenced by:

  • Self-publishing by home enthusiasts 2 more adept at learning web markup languages than designing clean layouts resulted in busy, often garish pages.
  • Pre-CSS sites were usually built in tables, which in the hands of the uninspired designer resulted in simple broad single column layouts.
  • Pre-broadband internet speeds excluded the use of high quality images in websites, which resulted in text-heavy sites, and drove designers to make use of animated GIFs and pixel art for visual interest.
  • Being in new territory as they were, designers chose the perhaps more intuitive and safe option of skeuomorphic design when creating elements, such as rounded or beveled buttons and decorative border frames

Web 2.0

(Turn of the century to present day)

(Sample sites are the sites you use every day. Facebook, Youtube, Google Maps, etc.)

This is where we are now. Described by some as the "interactive web". Available technology has had much more of an influence on function (services) of the web but the style has also been affected.

  • "Web design" became a legitimate field of interest and study. Established design theory (e.g Gestalt Principles) began to be applied and lead to an increase in quality.

  • Increased computing power and bandwidth enabled the use of high quality photography and custom typography

  • Evolving tastes lead to cleaner, spacious layouts, less skeuomorphic, flatter designs

  • Recently the rise of mobile computing and browsing has lead to the proliferation of responsive design and dominance of grid-based layouts.

Web 3.0

(The Future?)

Web 3.0 is often held to be synonomous with the Semantic Web. When the web becomes smart and starts to understand the meaning of pieces of content and the relationships between them. What our interfaces will look like then, and how they will have been influenced by the available technologies remains to be seen. Perhaps the rise of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) will take us to a post-screen era of interface design, and the concept webpage design becomes obsolete?

Summary

There are other angles from which to view the history of web/UI/interaction design, like this much simpler and technology-focused approach, but I think that in the long term, when we're looking back in 20 or 30 years, it is the broad categories I have proposed here that we'll use to describe the age (era) and style of a piece of web design.

References

1 - https://wittycookie.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/what-are-the-major-differences-among-web-1-0-2-0-and-3-0/

2 - http://ezinearticles.com/?Difference-Between-Web-1.0,-Web-2.0,-and-Web-3.0---With-Examples&id=3683790

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

| improve this answer | |
  • Eventually the Web won't "look like" anything, because we are moving quickly to voice interfaces. Personally, I like the Aussie Girl voice on my Kindle reader. Switching voices is wildly amusing, I wish I knew other languages. – user67695 Jan 30 '18 at 16:18
  • The web can't ever be a purely voice interface, simply because of how inefficient voice is as a way of communicating large amounts of information. – dennislees Jan 30 '18 at 17:54
  • just wait til we can start transmitting directly from brain to brain to internet – Gasper Feb 1 '18 at 3:10
3

@dennislees

i feel like even web 1.0 and web 2.0 could each be broken up into 2 additional "stages"

web 0.5 – geocities-type, flashy garbage

web 1.0 – not quite fully skeumorphic yet

web 2.0 – skeumorphic

web 2.5 – skeumorphic/flat?

today – flat 3D

what do you think?

| improve this answer | |
  • I think skeuomorphic design definitely straddles the gap, one of the primary features of early 2.0 design being the glossy buttons made to look like rounded glass, but I think ultimately that drawing lines between the various phases of design history will be easier to do from the future : ) – dennislees Jan 30 '18 at 15:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.