Talk:Skeuomorph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation[edit]

How is Skeuomorph pronounced? Michael Z. 2006-11-28 06:31 Z

Why is it spelled 2 different ways in the article? Bhny 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page to use one spelling.K8 fan 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

skyoo-uh-morf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.12.202 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My ancient languages friend says skyoo-oh-morf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.214.160 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples[edit]

Many software "plug-ins", especially with music and audio programs, employ skeumorphic interfaces to emulate expensive, fragile or obsolete instruments and audio processors. Functional inputs controls like knobs, buttons, switches and sliders are all careful duplicates of the ones on the original physical device being emulated. Even elements of the original that serve no function, like handles, screws and ventilation holes are carefully reproduced.

The argument in favor of skeumorphic design is that it makes it easier for those familiar with the original device to use the digital emulation, and that it looks "cool".

The various arguments against skeumorphic design are: that skeumorphic interface elements always take up more screen space than standard interface elements; that this breaks operating system interface design standards; that skeumorphic interface elements rarely incorporate numeric input or feedback for accurately setting a value; and that many users may have no experience with the original device being emulated.K8 fan 18:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emulation v Skeuomorph[edit]

I wasn't convinced by the idea that the Zune's button design is a skeuomorph of an iPod, since more broadly speaking they are objects originating in the same period and using more or less the same technology... a better example might be CD players that are disguised as LP turntables. I like the overall article but that example was not convincing and didn't seem to fit the idea that a skeuomorph is supposed to be evoking an earlier technology/object/form, not simply emulating something else. Would recommend substituting a different example. It isn't a major point, I know, but undermines the given definition. Zozer319 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The iPod's design pre-dates the design of the Zune by several years. But I agree that it is not an example that will stand the test of time. K8 fan 14:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NOT an example of a skeuomorph; same technology, same function. It's an example of design "rip-off", sort of like claiming that a hatchback is a skeuomorph of a stationwagon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.12.202 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source these...[edit]

These segments look quite dubious to me and have been flagged for citation since November 2008. I don't see how hidden stone joints are taken to be aesthetic remainders of previous function. Aren't they still functional? I'm also going to go ahead and make an anecdotal observation that circular arrangements of buttons or keys is not new to the Zune or the iPod. I have a number of remotes like that. In essence, the argument could be made that the Zune is hinting at the touch-wheel, but let it be made by a notable source first.

The mortice and tenon joints present in the trilithons of Stonehenge may be examples of skeuomorphs, derived from earlier timber structures.[citation needed]
An example from the field of consumer electronics is the presence of a circle on the face of the Zune - this is not needed, as the buttons exist in a four-way configuration, but is shaped to bring to mind the touch-wheel interface of the iPod.[citation needed]

- User:BalthCat (logged out) - 142.167.86.170 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not obvious if you haven't seen the Zune in person, but the touchpad is a round-cornered square, and the skeuomorphic connection to an iPod's touch-wheel is pretty tenuous. You'd be on stronger ground suggesting that the current iPod Classic and Nano touchwheels were a skeuomorphic reference to the original iPod's physical wheel, but it's still pretty weak, and would be much worse than the quite good examples currently in the article.

--rcousine (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from literary and design sources[edit]

This article might be improved by mentioning that design movements such as the Bauhaus rejected the skeumorph, or that Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead struggles against, disdains, and ultimately triumphs over those who insist on tacking skeumorphs on their designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.74.93 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage wheels?[edit]

Wire-pattern hubcaps are a clear example of a skeuomorph, and wire wheels date back to the carriage era (Wiki "Wire Wheels" article says bicycles used them first, I'm not sure...), but wire hubcaps are referring to the entirely functional wire car wheels that were used up to the 1960s.

I can't list a perfect cite, but here's a history of the car wheel. I believe wire wheels were entirely functional high-performance items (lighter than the cheaper stamped-steel wheels) until the lighter weight (and to some extent, better aerodynamics and brake cooling) of cast or forged magnesium or aluminum wheels took over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcousine (talkcontribs) 23:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC) --rcousine (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The many 'wires' are threaded at the outside end, and the little pieces that hold them to the rims can be turned to properly center/balance the tire. 201.253.128.155 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have this image on the page now. I wonder if a better example might be the more contemporary shiny plastic wheel cover that resembles an alloy wheel (complete with fake nuts and bolts) but is actually just a decorative cover for a plain black steel wheel. --Cornellier (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

Removed the example "Non-functional air intake grille on the (electric) Chevy Volt". The Chevy Volt has in every design known included a liquid cooled internal combustion engine that requires a radiator for cooling making the front grille functional. Also air conditioning systems have a condenser that will also make the front grill functional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkarrow (talkcontribs) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how are the loops on the maple syrup bottle 'non-functional'? Something that has changed purpose is not a skeuomorph. The handles on small maple syrup bottles allow them to be hung up, which is what we do at my house. That's clearly a function. Further, a skeuomorph (according to the article) pertains to structures "necessary [to] the original". The handles weren't necessary for the bottles to be bottles. They were an extra feature. Geofferic TC 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example image should be changed to one of the brands that features a non-functional loop handle with glass where the hole should be. As far as functionality, the traditional maple syrup container (at least in the United States) was a one gallon jug. The handles on those were a necessity to be able to pour syrup from the heavy jug. Over time, container size for maple syrup shrunk and the handle was no longer a vital tool. That seem (at least to me) a definitive example of a skeuomorph. K8 fan (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More of the above explanation should be included in the Maple Syrup line. As it is, the article doesn't explain why the handle is a skeuomorph.

Mr. Shoeless (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the rivets example is a good one, although it's a lovely photo. The rivets are functional, and the cover is just a decorative cap. I don't think anything is pretending to be anything its not, which is surely a test for skeuomorphism. --Cornellier (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The keypad mounted to the safe in the circular bezel is NOT skeuomorphic. That arrangement exists because the safe company is using the same casting and welding processes to build the safe door as it did back when the lock was mechanical and required the bezel. Changing the shape of the door would be expensive and time-consuming with basically zero real benefit. At most, it is unintentional skeuomorphy. Johnny Wishbone (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Johnny Wishbone (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the safe. Came here to say that. --Cornellier (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facade columns[edit]

No mention of facade columns. Aren't they a prime example? - I believe not. – Ekin(talk-@) 10:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many building facades are festooned with skeuomorphs. From the mutules, guttae, and modillions mentioned in the article to fake shutters, to columns which are non-structural e.g.[1] --Cornellier (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would another example be the horizontal and vertical plastic strips that visually divide home windows into ~8x10 inch panes? Years ago, glass panes larger than 8x10" were presumably expensive and subject to defects that would make them hard to see clearly through. By breaking a large window into these smaller panes, and connecting them with a real lattice, it was possible to build large windows at lower cost. But now panes the full size of the window can be made inexpensively and with high quality, so the lattice is unnecessary. Hence the non-functional plastic lattices just resemble the old lattices. Mcswell (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital camera[edit]

"digital cameras play a recorded audio clip of a conventional SLR camera mirror slap and shutter opening and closing. Such ornamentation is not necessarily non-functional: the watch pocket is now used for coins, and the camera shutter sound is used to indicate to subject and photographer when the taking of the picture is complete.... Now i have read several sources, although i cannot find them at the moment. that states that one of the main reasons for having the audio sound to be played is so people cannot easily invade others privacy's by taking pictures they are unaware of . ie your "voyeurs" perverts that take "upskirt" pictures.. and what not. in fact i believe i read that it is infact law in places like japan for just that reason. I will leave it to others to find the RS and/or to include it if they see fit. i just thought it should be at least mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighallTimes (talkcontribs) 16:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Aesthetic recognition could be classified as a function, and one could argue that the use of representational codes to signify things is a function. However, the sound of a shutter is not relevant to a shutter-less camera, and *is* a skeumorph. It could just as well be a "beep" or a voice sample saying "cheese" or "photo-photo". – bishopdante — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.142.35 (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • This brings up a question. Can there be an audio skeuomorph such as your camera sample, or a cellphone can be set to ring with a vintage ringtone? Or or other sensory stimuli which resembles known senses. Car air fresheners that smell like a new car or fine leather?Flight Risk (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speed holes?[edit]

Would "speed holes" on recent cars qualify? 173.81.171.205 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Harbour Bridge pylons[edit]

Perhaps one of the largest engineering skeuomorphs are the twin 89 metre pylons at each end of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. They do not support anything, and are there only to frame the structure itself and make it look more like a traditional bridge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge#Pylons I'll include it in examples Myles325a (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the maple syrup bottle example a good one?[edit]

One of the example photos has the caption "Small maple syrup jug with non-functional loop handle." I have those bottles of maple syrup sometimes, and very often use the "non-functional" loop handle to pick the up because the top parts of the bottles tend to get sticky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.154.33 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you must have the daintiest little pinkies in the world! Myles325a (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinions of the bodies of Wikipedia contributors, the larger point is that the maple syrup bottle example is completely uncited, and thus calling it skeuomorphic is original research. Nandesuka (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand axe[edit]

I remember hearing in a documentary that early bronze hand axes imitated the shape of the stone ones that they replaced. This would show that the concept is an ancient one. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add this as an example, with appropriate citations? Old Aylesburian (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk[edit]

Steampunk was added Feb 10, 2012, and undone Feb 15, 2012. Steampunk seems a very good example of Skeumorphs carried to the extreme. I therefore wish your thoughts for its re-inclusion. CasualVisitor (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long list[edit]

Our "Other Examples" section is starting to turn this article into List of Skeuomorphs rather than just a few examples to illustrate the principle. We really don't need to (and could not possibly) list every example of this phenomenon. About five or six choice examples should suffice. The list needs to be agressively pruned (per WP:LISTCRUFT) - it would be good to require reliable sources for some of these claims too. Who says that the hood scoop on an '07 MINI Cooper'S is a skeuomorph rather than an important part of the functioning vehicle? (I happen to know this - but in a Wikipedia article, we need a reference for that fact). SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Highly relevant and clear examples are best in a list of this type. If someone did want to make an entire list of Reliably Sourced skeuomorphs (or if someone wants to suggest switching any of the examples now used), then this diff of the items that were removed, should be helpful. Thanks Steve :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted the addition of "Gorget" (sorry to whoever added it!) - whilst it's an excellent example of a skeuomorph, it's archaic and doesn't add anything to the descriptive meaning of skeuomorph. Once again, this isn't List of Skeuomorphs...this is a description of this term and that's all we need here. If someone wants to make List of Skeuomorphs, I'd be generally supportive - although I do believe that such a list could easily degenerate into WP:LISTCRUFT - which would be "A Bad Thing(tm)". SteveBaker (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article."...I guess that would justify a List of Skeuomorphs article if anyone desired to create it. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are icons skeuomorphs?[edit]

Around the web, when the meaning of this term is explained, it is common that the floppy disk save icon is cited as an example of skeuomorphism as well as other computer icons. I'm wondering if it could be a correct example (in this case it could be a relevant integration for the article) or if the term icon already implies the presence of a metaphor for an existing object. I haven't found any source that settles this down. Enaki (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, icons are not skeuomorphs. The Wiktionary definition says "A design feature copied from a similar artifact in another material, even when not functionally necessary." - so this isn't something that's functioning like a floppy disk, it's just a picture of one that evokes the idea of "saving a file". A floppy disk isn't "saving a file" - it's the media upon which the file happens to be saved. It's interesting in that it's entirely archaic - but I'm not sure it's really a skeuomorph. However, this article doesn't need a long list of skeuomorphs - just a few to illustrate the point is OK. So let's not write about tricky borderline cases and instead stick to the obvious ones that best illustrate the subject. SteveBaker (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a widely used example all over the web (eg [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). That reddit thread has an interesting comment on the analogy of floppydisk->save, as Rod of Asclepius->medicine.
The paper/leather calendar (as we're currently explaining via the iCal screenshot/caption) is the other usual example. Searching for "Skeuomorph apple" gets oodles of recent results (eg [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), and apple has been using metaphorical UI since their start.
Whilst looking, I found The Myth of metaphor (1995) by Alan Cooper, which doesn't mention the word skeuomorph, but seems highly relevant to the way the word is currently used when talking about software.
Burnt out now. Can someone else figure out how to work some of this in? :) —Quiddity (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A floppy disk is archaic, but what would be used in it's place? Creating an icon that says "SAVE" will be unattractive and, in the end, it will still be just a symbol that invokes the function. It is very similar to the "home" button in most browsers that is a symbol of a house.. yet few cite that as a skeuomorph. A skeuomorph is primarily ornamental design that imitates original elements, there by making them unnecessary now.. but an icon, whatever the design, is required still. —csnoke (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a few other examples of a skeumorph in computer interface design – the pencil icon for edit, and the envelope icon for email. Also, the typical file icon is from a sheet of paper with the corner folded. The usage of the floppy disk icon is not a skeuomorph per se, even if it is becoming obsolete, it is an orphan representation, the computer was the original usage of the icon, rather than an element or quality introduced *only* for its connotations such as the envelope in email software. Emails never came in envelopes. – bishopdante.
The floppy disk save icon is a symbol, not a skeuomorph. Test it against the definition of symbol: "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract" (oxforddictionaries.com). On the other hand the push button on which the floppy disk usually sits is skeuomorphic in that it imitates a physical push-button. --Cornellier (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example given of the videoconferencing program isn't a skeuomorph either. The hanged phone is just an icon and it carries a function. The example with evernote is debatable too, since the point of showing piles of documents is to make understand at a glance what is the function of the pile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.114.65 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add more images and a gallery?[edit]

Although I don't think images should ever be used superfluously or to decorate, I do think this article deserves to be more illustrated than the average article, since its subject matter is intrinsically visual, and in the traditional pre-computing sense of the term, the subject matter is intrinsically physical. So illustrations really do have a role to play in documenting the subject. Perhaps a gallery could be added with more carefully-selected examples. It wouldn't be too hard to find some nice illustrations of some of the objects already mentioned in the article, e.g. mutules, guttae, and modillions, flame-shaped lightbulbs, artificial leather grain on a book or car dashboard, and so on. A lot of good images probably already in the Commons. --Cornellier (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological component missing[edit]

From personal experience, skeuomorphs seem to have a calming effect much like color psychology. I would like to see someone tackle this topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of skeuomorph[edit]

As shown by the discussion above, there is a lack of clarity around the definition of the skeuomorph, making it difficult to decide which objects are skeuomorphic. Until recently skeuomorphs existed only as physical objects, for example artificial leather grain on items that traditionally used leather but now use plastics, such as car dashboards and books. The traditional definition is "an ornament or design on an object copied from a form of the object when made from another material or by other techniques, as an imitation metal rivet mark found on handles of prehistoric pottery" (dictionary.com). However in today's usage (as evidenced in many blogs etc.) the meaning is more general: "an object or feature which imitates the design of a similar artefact in another material" (Oxforddictionaries.com). By this definition, any UI object on a screen that references a physical object is by definition skeuomorphic since it is made of a different material. I am raising the subject here on the talk page to:

  • get a consensus on what this article is about, which will in turn inform decisions about what are and are not valid examples
  • develop a more elaborate definition of skeuomorph for the article itself, which puts the idea in the context of metaphor and symbolism.

--Cornellier (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant edit[edit]

ShanePusz and I added citations and examples and removed references to specific examples to a new page Skeuomorphs in Popular Culture in order to streamline this page and have it focus on the concept more without being bogged down by so many examples. Sarahild (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShanePusz and Sarahild! Thanks for adding some context with affordances, Mimesis, and archetype. I wonder though, if someone who just read another blog about Apple Inc. and came here to find out what a skeuomorph is is going to be helped or further confused by that .... According to the guidelines at WP:split it seems the article should not be split. But I'm guessing what you're trying to do is get some differentiation between the "academic" discussion of the term skeuomorph, and it's sudden entry into popular vocabulary (it's even on Urban Dictionary!) Maybe a solution is to have two parts of the article -- one describing the traditional and strict definition of the term, another its recent and rather loose usage. It's true that it doesn't to have people adding examples of what they consider to be skeuomorphs willy nilly ... but I think moving the examples to another article won't solve that problem. What'll solve that problem is a better definition of the term and the purpose of this article.--Cornellier (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself ... while this edit introduces some new content, it also introduces a certain number of new problems. I don't want to be the guy who reverts articles, but at this point I'm wonder whether to revert, and then merge in the good stuff that ShanePusz & Sarahild added. Or just fix the new bits. Hmm, I'll do one or the other tomorrow unless anyone speaks up. Anyone? --Cornellier (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been monitoring this article for quite some time (digital skeuomorphs was my addition, and the arguments for and against skeuomorphic design). It's such a cool term that loads of new users visit here and add one - and the list gets longer and eventually gets pruned. Rinse, repeat. I'd suggest a compromise - nobody gets to add a new example without providing pictures of the skeuomorph and the original. K8 fan (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for your thoughts, Cornellier and K8 fan. Let me first explain why we did some of these changes. ShanePusz and I thought it would be very helpful to define skeuomorphism with other design terms because of how little this term actually is used and understood. In order to define a term, it's necessary to know its boundaries. This concept map helps tell with what it shares its boundaries. I admit, that paragraph might need to be smoothed and worked on some more, but I don't think we should get rid of it altogether. As for separating the examples from the main page, we thought it best not to have the page cluttered with all these examples, since we knew that it's probably going to keep growing no matter what. I really like K8 fan's solution that a picture must be provided in order to add an example. However, we might end up with too many pictures, which could overload users with limited or metered bandwidth. Having a separate page would solve this.Sarahild (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there was starting to be an example or two in every paragraph, while the definition of the term itself went largely unimproved. We realized that each example may have been good for some but not for others, so the fair thing to do was to establish a list with Wikipedia based guidelines. The other reasoning for a separate list was as K8 fan said, the term is gaining importance, so a variety of users will be drawn here with a variety of background knowledge. By explaining the different definitions, then allowing for a list of examples, we thought we could cater to the widest variety of users. Conellier, we actually largely kept the initial content, but pruned out some extraneous citations and even corrected some to a more relevant academic source. Seeing as we did most of the work in a google doc over a long period of time, it was easier to just paste our article over the content. We apologize if this is not the proper method. Cheers, Shanepusz (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shanepusz and Sarahild, the section "Digital Skeuomorphs" that you edited, would you please fix it so that the capitalisation of letters is correct case for WP. Also you have an unreferenced section "Arguments For Skeuomorphism". I think this section needs a rewrite because it's not helpful to talk about "for" and "against" skeuomorphs. Skeuomorphs exist as vocabulary in the language of design. Sometimes they are useful and appropriate. Sometimes they are tacky and bad. The colour orange exists. Sometimes it looks good in a design. Sometimes it doesn't. But we don't need arguments for and against "orange". Consider rather "Usage" and "Criticism" for e.g. --Cornellier (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally opposed to skeuomorphic design, and have added another reference for that section. I suspect that someone who likes it will have to add references for it. But it is hard to find a reference that doesn't discuss the arguments for and against, so I believe this article should have the debate included.K8 fan (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that our personal views influence our editing, heh. You think skeumorphic design by definition is a crutch or kitsch or ostentatious or worse? True it's a thin line between useful metaphor and tacky skeuomorph ... and it's time to draw that line in the sand ! Or in the article.... --Cornellier (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If most of us are honest, I think we can admit we tend to work on articles that we care about, either a positive or negative way. Personally, my main objection to skeuomorphic design is that it is an inefficient use of screen real estate. A lovingly designed knob in a audio software package takes up more screen space than a slider and readout, and is harder to get repeatable results with. As for "tacky", one of the refs I just added points out that the stitched leather in iCal was a careful reproduction of the leather in Steve Jobs' Gulfstream jet. And I stand by my view that the debate will have to be included in the article, as in the last two years, it has reached near-religious intensity.
The most difficult task yet to be faced in this article is defining skeuomorph from imitation. Is the woven rattan pattern of these plastic bath flip-flops a skeuomorph, an imitation or both?
Flip-Flops

Examples and images: with citations only please[edit]

The picture of a car with fake wood siding is a perfect illustration of why examples should only be added to the article which have citations. Whether this is a skeuomorph or just a kitsch decoration is debatable in light of the length of time that has passed since our culture transitioned from wooden carriages to automobiles. It may well be a skeuomorph but Wikipedia editors should not be deciding what is and what is not a skeuomorph. That's called original research. This talk page and the history of this article is full of discussion of what qualifies as a skeuomorph. As User:K8_fan wrote above "I've been monitoring this article for quite some time ... it's such a cool term that loads of new users visit here and add one - and the list gets longer and eventually gets pruned. Rinse, repeat. I'd suggest a compromise - nobody gets to add a new example without providing pictures of the skeuomorph and the original." To stop unreferenced content creep, I propose that only referenced examples and images be permitted in this article and that existing unreferenced images and examples be removed. --Cornellier (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the reason I reverted is because despite the line in the section WP:WHYCITE, citations in captions are fairly rare and I find them to be excessive in most cases. I was particularly peeved because almost the exact same example, fake wood grain, was already present in the article. I wasn't aware of the discussion on the talk page though, and will look up a source or find an alternative example that is citable. Thanks for the message, Steven Walling • talk 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steven, thanks for the quick reply. Yeah I guess it was kind of experimental to put a "dubious" note in an image caption, I wanted to encourage you to head over to this talk page. And ironically (or not) it was yours truly who snapped the photo of the plastic planks while at the DIY shop the other day. However since then I have been reformed and it's strictly cited examples only from now on! --Cornellier (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software calendar example[edit]

Is the example of the software calendar in the first paragraph actually an example of skeuomorphic design or of simple emulation? It's a calendar, what else would it look like besides... a calendar? Some of the other examples on the talk page (but no longer in the article) such as the floppy disk icon were clearly not skeuomorphic in design, either being merely a symbol or actually still being functional part of the design rather than simple carryovers. How is the software calendar that looks like a calendar skeuomorphic instead of simply functional?dunerat (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reasoning is that the month display is constrained by month units, as if the days were physically on a page, instead the days being a continuous flow, which would be more natural. That's how its done over on calendar.google.com for example. --Cornellier (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mielstrup-Winther model[edit]

Why does the page not contain the Mielstrup-Winther-model? I would like to add it but I'm afraid I do not understand it on a high enough level to describe it in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepp2415 (talkcontribs) 07:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for and discussion about reverting primary definition to the narrower one[edit]

I have edited the article so that the primary definition of skeuomorphism given is the narrow one (an element that imitates something that was once functional in an older design), and I have relegated the broader definition of skeuomorphism (anything that looks like anything else) to being mentioned as an alternative definition later in the article. This is a reversal of the way the article has been for about a year, but I believe it was the correct choice for the following reasons:

  • The narrow definition is the original definition of the term, and as far as I am aware it is the exclusive definition used by designers.
  • Most of the content of the article is written for the narrower definition and doesn't make sense when applied to the broad definition.
  • I don't believe the broader definition even existed until tech bloggers diluted it from the narrow defintion within the last few years.
  • This article was written using the narrow definition and retained that definition up until mid 2012. Wiktionary still uses that definition as well.
  • The broad definition is not useful as design term, as it has the exact same meaning as the word "imitates". Using the broad definition then leaves no term to describe the specific cases that fall under the original, narrower definition of skeuomorphism.

I saw that somebody had started a discussion about this several months ago and it go no replies. I have decided to be bold and make the edit, and hopefully anybody who disagrees with it will be willing to discuss it here. Chris3145 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Windows?[edit]

"Apple officially shifted from skeuomorphism to a more simplified design, thus beginning the so-called "death of skeuomorphism" What? Windows Phone had a clear design influence over the subsequent versions of Android and iOS, and even if you disagree about WP influence then there's Android 3.x which is way older than iOS 7 anyway, but Apple is credited for beginning the "death of skeuomorphism"? I'm no fanboy of Microsoft or Google, but if Wikipedia wants to present facts it's failing. I quit Wikipedia for today. --Rafaelluik (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skeuomorphism - As analyzed by Marshall McLuhan - (in Laws Of Media, et-al...)[edit]

Skeuomorphism - As analyzed by Marshall McLuhan - (in Laws Of Media, et-al...) Canadian philosopher and author Marshall McLuhan contributed much insightful analysis of this topic, in his profound studies of Media and Mind. His last book, published posthumously by his son, was Laws Of Media - in which he postulates a cardinal set of "existential" dimensions to the synergies and evolutions of media and mind -- including a form of Skueomorphism, as one [half of-] of the vectors of media forms in transition. 70.67.10.185 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of skeuos[edit]

According to my dictionary of ancient Greek, skeue or skeuos can also mean "jewelry" or "disguise," and I believe that this meaning is more plausible in explaining the origin of the term than "tool" or "container." Jan van Werth (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Memetic skeuomorphs"[edit]

User:Kashifv wrote a section in this article about "memetic skeumorphs," but none of the references in this article appear to use this phrase. Is there such a thing as a "memetic skeuomorph?" Jarble (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronistic Skeuomorphs =[edit]

Could we elaborate on why and how an electric tea kettle is "downright dangerous" if used in the "original way"? What, specifically, is the "original way?" Putting it on the stove? Pouring from the spout? Actually while I'm at it I'm going to just remove the word downright from that sentence. It doesn't seem like good tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF0B:1B00:B8A7:723A:4709:D290 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint copying shape of copper axe needs ref[edit]

What proof is there that DEV-A14B15_polished_flint_axe_copying_an_EBA_copper_axe_(FindID_188146).jpg is an "ancient flint copying shape of an expensive copper axe". Is this WP:OR ? --Cornellier (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

skia[edit]

also spelled skiamorph

That has a different derivation, from σκια skia ‘shadow’. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeuomorph revision - Removal of the Flag of the Iroquois Confederacy from The Gallery of Skeuomorph examples[edit]

Hey! I noticed you undid my change to Skeuomorph to add the Flag of the Haudenosaunee. What is the reasoning behind this not being a skeuomorph? The stair-stepping on the tree in the middle of the flag was a necessary structure in the original belt because it was made from beads. The design of the flag is explicitly fashioned after the design of the belt, and although the stair-steps are no longer needed, they are still included. --Blacklemon67 (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blacklemon67: I don't understand how the Flag is a skeuomorph. The Flag lacks the characteristics required to be a skeuomorph. By definition, a skeuomorph is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues (attributes) from structures that were necessary for the original (but are not essential in the derivative object).
When I looked over the several examples of skeuomorphs in "The Gallery", I logically understood from the explanations for the first five that they satisfied the skeuomorph definition/requirements. There were elements in the derivative objects that were not necessary in their design use. However, the flag of the Iroquois Confederacy didn't satisfy this "unnecessary element" definition requirement.
Your rationale that the flag design was a skeuomorph because it "appeared pixelated" when apparently you thought it did not need to be pixelated doesn't satisfy the criteria of a skeuomorph. In representing the Hiawatha wampum belt symbol, which was originally created using the Native American beadwork craft method, it is apparent that the flag creators determined that it was desirable to reflect the "bead" beading artwork (which created a "pixelation" on purpose) that was true to the original as much as possible.
The flag is a true representation of the wampum belt as fully as possible--no more, no less. Not a skeuomorph in any manner.
Osomite hablemos 01:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]