[postmodest]

That model of visual-memory-centered skeumorphism died in the 90's. Because for a majority of people, they get no benefit from persistent visual placement of content, or visual differentiation of documents, and can't cope with the "desktop" in REAL life, much less the metaphor that was "every desktop UX between the Mother of All Demoes and the death of even trying that was the iPhone" now people interact with the world through vertically siloed apps which all have different management models for content, and make it easier to charge you feudal rent on what would otherwise be your own possessions.

And what especially galls me is that if you suggest this "skeumorphic" model to OSS devs, they act like you're crazy. Even if it's something simple like "the Indigo Magic Desktop's scalable line art icons that had animated states". Suggesting visual interfaces seems to grossly offend people who develop software.

[underlipton]

>Because for a majority of people, they get no benefit from persistent visual placement of content, or visual differentiation of documents

You say that, but I don't think it's true. (I think you even argue against it later in the comment but I'm not sure??)

[m463]

I agree.

I liked some things that looked more physical/tactile.

To be clear, I don't care if my calculator looks like a desk calculator as much as if clickable buttons show they are clickable. Underlining a link might be inelegant, but it is also functional and immediately knowable.