readings response 2

The thesis of Frank Chimero’s article “What Screens Want” is the concept of “flux” as a core component for designing for screens. In the opening of the article, Chimero writes- “Designing for screens is managing that change. To put a finer head on it, the grain of screens is something I call flux.” (Chimero). Chimero highlights this change in the digital realm as structural changes, through responsiveness, customization, and variability. It is through digital screens where he believes these changes can be most implemented and should be the basis for user interface design.


With the two ideological camps flat and skeuomorphic, I think I would side similarly to Chimero’s take, where he writes that there are both benefits and downsides to each- but ultimately it is up to personal aesthetic choice. “ Screens are aesthetically neutral, so the looks of things are not a part of their grain.” (Chimero) Personally I prefer flat designs and interfaces, I think they stay relevant for longer, whereas skeuomorphic designs tend to feel dated faster. Originally skeuomorphic interfaces were necessary to convey the visual information to users, but as we progress further in a digital world I feel users are becoming more aware of visual cues giving designers more autonomy to take design risks.


Zoopraxiscope is an early concept device that was used to project moving images. In Chimero’s article he explains that “what you’re watching is a volume of traveling light, and that light needs to land on something to show itself. This is one of the origins of screens.” (Chimero) Zoopraxiscope relates to web and interaction by showcasing how animating images can lead to viewers/users gaining visual information. An example of filmmaking can be seen in the storyboard process, the counterpart in design would be creating a wireframe for a design or interface. The process of planning out a film and camera shots in a storyboard can be translated to when designers sequence out an interface in a wireframe.