(PDF) Flat Design vs Traditional Design: Comparative Experimental Study


accompanied by a significantly higher error rate; the difference in oculomotor activity

reflects the specificity of traditional and flat webpage design.

Our experimental study supports the opinion expressed by many HCI and usability

experts that flat design is a harmful tendency in area of user interfaces, and should be

replaced by interfaces based on the design principles developed over decades of research

and practice of HCI and usability engineering.

The research was supported by a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic

Research (14-06-00371).

References

1. App, E., Debus, G.: Saccadic velocity and activation: development of a diagnostic tool for

assessing energy regulation. Ergonomics 41, 689–697 (1998)

2. Banga, C., Weinhold, J.: Essential Mobile Interaction Design: Perfecting Interface Design in

Mobile Apps. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2014)

3. Belveal, R.: Where Have All the Affordances Gone? (2013). http://belveal.net/2013/03/19/

where-have-all-the-affordances-gone

4. Crosby, M.E., Iding, M.K., Chin, D.N.: Visual search and background complexity: does the

forest hide the trees? In: Bauer, M., Gmytrasiewicz, P.J., Vassileva, J. (eds.) UM 2001. LNCS

(LNAI), vol. 2109, pp. 225–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

5. Di Stasi, L.L., Antolí, A., Cañas, J.J.: Main sequence: an index for detecting mental workload

variation in complex tasks. Appl. Ergon. 42, 807–813 (2011)

6. Enders, J.: Flat UI and Forms (2013). http://alistapart.com/article/flat-ui-and-forms

7. Hou, K.-C., Ho, C.-H.: A preliminary study on aesthetic of apps icon design. In: 5th

International Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research 2013

(2013). http://design-cu.jp/iasdr2013/papers/1811-1b.pdf

8. Idler, S.: Flat Web Design Is Here to Stay. Usabilla, Amsterdam (2013)

9. Li, C., Shi, H., Huang, J., Chen, L.: Two Typical Symbols in Human-Machine Interactive

Interface. Appl. Mech. Mater. 635–637, 1659–1665 (2014)

10. Nielsen, J.: Windows 8 – Disappointing Usability for Both Novice and Power Users (2012).

http://nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability

11. Noessel, C.: Your Flat Design Is Convenient for Exactly One of Us (2014). http://cooper.com/

journal/2014/01/your-flat-design-is-convenient-for-exactly-one-of-us

12. Page, T.: Skeuomorphism or flat design: future directions in mobile device user interface (UI)

design education. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organisat. 8, 130–142 (2014)

13. Pomplun, M., Reingold, E.M., Shen, J.: Investigating the visual span in comparative search:

the effects of task difficulty and divided attention. Cognit. 81, B57–B67 (2001)

14. Renshaw, J.A., Finlay, J.E., Tyfa, D., Ward, R.D.: Designing for visual influence: an eye

tracking study of the usability of graphical management information. In: INTERACT 2003,

pp. 144–151. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)

15. Schneidermeier, T., Hertlein, F., Wolff, C.: Changing paradigm – changing experience? In:

Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8517, pp. 371–382. Springer, Heidelberg

(2014)

16. Stickel, C., Pohl, H.-M., Milde, J.-T.: Cutting edge design or a beginner’s mistake? – a

semiotic inspection of iOS7 icon design changes. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2014, Part II.

LNCS, vol. 8518, pp. 358–369. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

17. Velichkovsky, B.M.: Heterarchy of cognition: the depths and the highs of a framework for

memory research. Memory 10, 405–419 (2002)

Flat Design vs Traditional Design: Comparative Experimental Study 113