I don't think it's a fad, it's more that the scene as a whole is more mature. Less is more has always been a strong point in design, and it's becoming even more so in web design with the rise of better font selections etc.
That said, there will still be a place for the use of textures and other effects to create a certain look, and I see no problem combining subtle textures with large type, flat buttons and "the new style".

Im starting to quite like this "flat, minimal and clean" style that is becoming more popular. It seems to make designs more beautiful in a way. Well to me it does. I think that there can be too flat though. I have seen a New York Design company that specialises in that sort of work and all there website was, was a white background with small black text in the top, left hand corner. I think that took it a bit too far. Like @Atle Mo/SP said there will be some designs that will work a lot better with elements of gradient, textures and shadows. So I don't see it dying off, well hopefully not! Im interested to see what Apple do with their next iPhone, to see if they change their UI and go for something minimal or change the ball game completely!

I think "flat design" is becoming more prominent in design (not just in web design but in interface design too) for two reasons:

1. People are just following a trend which is inevitable when something "new" and exciting comes along.

2. The need of gradients, textures & shadows in UI is diminishing. Users are becoming more comfortable with the devices they're using: they doesn't feel new and unfamiliar to them anymore.

Visual cues created by gradients, textures & shadows (skeuomorphic elements) to help users understand products and reduce learning curves aren't needed as much anymore.

The right move is to strip out unimportant gradients, textures & shadows, making the interface a lot simpler, minimal, flat and clean.

Can't remember who coined the term - think it was the guys from Layer Vault - but it's a misnomer: flat design is simply good design, that suits the medium well.

One other thing: critics of the style point to the lack of visual interactive cues. This is just bad design; not a criticism of the aesthetic.

Take a look at news.layervault.com by the way: it's new and sexy.

I love the look of Designer News. It's a content driven website with a design that focuses on just that.

While I prefer a minimal/simple aesthetic, good design is not about whether something is 'flat' or not.

Good design is about boiling the aesthetic down to it's essentials in a way that makes moving through a product/website easier and more intuitive for it's audience. But this does not mean that a flat/minimal aesthetic is always the answer or is applicable for all audiences.

I'm not sure generalising terms like 'flat' design are that helpful or meaningful of context really.

I agree with @Guy Moorehour. I see "flat design" & "skeuomorphism" as tools in a designer's tool box. Some tools are better than others for a particular job.

You wouldn't use a skew driver to hammer in a nail but that doesn't mean a skew driver isn't useful for other things.

It all comes down to the experience you're trying to deliver to your audience, then it's up to us to pick the right tool for the job.

Agreed with @Timothy and @Guy Moorhouse. Styles are tools to communicate. It's like asking whether or not a Tuscan Villa is better than a French Colonial home. There is preference, theme and possibly a better fit for the job at hand.

A good designer utilizes all of these styles as tools and is like a great musician. They can switch effortlessly between styles and become a chameleon based the needs of the client at hand.

I feel it was the Metro & Holo UIs which really made the flat design sexy. It was fresh, very new as many have mentioned and thus very appealing.

It was there even before, but all the publicity post the two giants adopting flat feel interfaces really catapulted it into the limelight!

If you're using a style just because it looks good, you've got it all wrong. I think we all have to remember, this discussion has very little to do with looks and personal preferences.

Styles should be chosen based on the experience product you're building and the audience you're building for: taste comes after.

I agree with you, Timothy. Designing for reliability and functionality should come first and foremost.

I totally agree with you Timothy and Cole but really do believe that first impressions matter a lot!

Its just because branch looks really neat that most people felt like trying it out and its only after that the realisation of design-supporting-the-functionality came in.

My point was just that the neatness of the flat style designs usually helps in keeping the focus on content while still 'looking' great.

I personally think its a retaliation to skeu. It is companies who strive to be different to 'Apple' so they do the exact opposite.

It is also important to consider which style represents the brand, rather than getting the brand to conform to one of the other.

Rohit, I don't think that it's because branch looks really neat that it is cool. I think the functionality of the site is top notch. Branch is simple and intuitive, it's familiar, and it's easy to register. I think the novelty of the website has a lot to do with it.

It's deeply integrated with twitter and even looks like twitter. It also incorporates a mini feed where you can see when users are invited or added.

I'd also say that flat is too far a generalization of what we can begin to call a renaissance of the design age, where it is not merely a toy in the hands of children, but rather a tool in the hands of expert craftsmen. Design as we know it will continue to evolve along with our society, a society whose attentions is constantly shifting and knowledge increasing. A set of individuals who no longer see the vast infrastructure of the internet as a fad, but rather a part of their everyday lives, and thus it must be as accessible as the rest of it, and I'd say that simplicity in our designs is a direct result of that yearning.

I actually wrote an article on this a while back.

I really like @Timoty's 2nd point. Skeuomorphic design is great if you are trying to make digital look analog, but it's no longer needed. In fact, I would go even further to say that it's borderline silly to try and recreate analog experience in the digital world. No matter how you try, it just won't feel right. Check out this video, relevan > joegebbia.com

That said, good design is good design. step 1 is to design something that works for the user. Whether it is flat of full of rainbows and unicorns doesn't matter as much, if the user is able to do what you planned for them to do. Now, if the user is lost, your design choices won't matter.

Focus on users, adjust everything else accordingly.

Flat design has become really popular, but that doesn’t mean it’s a fad. It also doesn’t mean it’s always the route to take when developing a visual language for a website. As with all other aesthetics, it is either appropriate or inappropriate and needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Good design is being able to identify the right aesthetic, flat design or not. Good design is NOT following a trend and doing it well.

Probably should have put "flat" in quotes. When I say "flat," I mean not skeumorphic design.

I assume flat design goes hand-in-hand with what the industry coined Animation as Affordance. bevels, shadows, are cues of interactivity. the smoother and more time-responsive the animation, the less skeuomorphic design is needed.

Hey guys, feel free to start other discussions in this group: branch.com

and to be very technocentric here, it's a consequence of framework consolidation (iOS, jquery, RoR), freeing developers from basic functionality, optimized by the framework.

Smoother animation means you don't need to use visual cues to show interactivity: the animation does the trick.

try a flat design in a non-time-responsive device (android, cough!) and you'll realize how poor it gets.

Indeed, the flat design era has emerged. It has developed into a this new designing technique that we are starting to see pop up on Dribbble and Behance more frequently.

I think the use of skeuomorphism has definitely helped bridge our connection between the tangible and the intangible. It’s been a huge step in maturing our relationship with the web. It seems skeuomorphism now has lost its purpose and seems more like a cheap trick that masks the true quality of an UI.

Flat user interfaces look and feel refreshing after recent years, but it can also be taken too far.

It’s a good reminder that a particular aesthetic should always be used because it fits the purpose of the application, not because it’s the "cool" thing to do.

I like both. Both have their strengths and weakness. With skeuomorphism, there is a lot of information that the brain has to process. But with flat design, it's extremely hard to create a unique visual identity. Both are useful weapons in our hands as someone else pointed out already, so instead of pointing out the flaws in them, we should keep innovating and make good use of them.

And no, I don't see flat design going out anytime soon. Not in a decade, at least.

But what is confusing is why people hate skeuomorphism if they love "flat design." I guess they are fed up of skeu. If that is the case, they'll grow tired of flat someday too?

Design trends get old, but good design never goes out of style. "Flat" style is one thing, but boiling down design to its essentials is Modernism at its core and Modernism has yet to go out of style.

For a great example of a site that still looks fresh and has mostly gone unchanged for nearly a decade, see subtraction.com.
Vinh's design fulfills almost all of the Modernist ideals: Honesty, transparency, and pragmatism. And it is because of those principles that such design is not at the whims of fashion and fads.

Chris, I completely agree with you in terms of good vs. bad design. Bad design is something styled without intention. "Trendy" indicates that something is following along, and has a negative connotation suggesting that in some way misinformed or misdirected.

Like most things, design is cyclical. Design changes as the market changes and to a certain degree as the audience changes. Some designers are wired to always look beyond what's around them try something 'new'.

I believe that 'flat' design appears to be a trend because a group of designers are rejecting skeuomorphic and returning to the basics. If you're not acutely aware of the history of design, you'll 'flat' design a fad.

If you look at this in the context of graphic design as a whole, it's only natural that trends would return to a flatter and simpler look. I also believe that drop shadows, gradients and all - at least in the quantities they were seen and the impact that they had on the design - were largely a reaction to being able to do them easily in our tools. Plus, as noted above, a lot of the older styles come from trying to understand and interpret UI.

As this being a "fad", I don't think it's important. As Haziq Mir mentioned above, both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Pick what style feels more appropriate for the brief.

Flat design as an aesthetic isn't (or shouldn't) be a 'thing'.

Modernist, minimal design is an ethos and a way of problem solving that often (but not always) manifests on the web as 'flat design stylez aesthetics', but no one should be dropping gradients because @allan wrote a blog post about it or because everyone's bored of skeuomorphic inanity on Dribbble.

People should look to 'flat design' as a better way of solving problems, not a brush to paint over inadequately thought-out solutions.

Am I to assume by flat design you are referring to the style that Windows 8 / Metro UI is built in? If thats the case, yes I think its a fad but that doesn't make it necessarily bad.

@WiliamSmith we've moved the discussion more towards minimal design. When I used "flat" I specifically meant the "flatten all the things" trend, rather than modernist design. At some point though, I assume even modernist design may pass. Everything has its time.

Just to build a bit on what Conner, Timothy, and a few others have said, the trend is partially due to how metaphors for screen-based interactions are changing.

We've used analog conventions to find our way about the digital world for a long time. Long enough now, it seems, that we can identify the cues for certain interactions without analog training-wheels: we don't need buttons to look pressable to know we can press them. There's still a convention at work, it's just one that derives from interacting with screens instead of something analog.

Maybe it's happening now as opposed +/- 2 years because opportunities beyond the mouse to interact with digital stuff finally mainstream. 'Activate' becoming more appropriate than 'press/tap'..

"Good design is about boiling the aesthetic down to it's essentials in a way that makes moving through a product/website easier and more intuitive for it's audience." --@Guy Moorhouse

I love this! What a perfect way to summarize the distinction. @Jon Gold makes a great point as well - "flat" design (or "minimal" or "essential"...whatever you want to call it) offers a solution to the issues presented by the expanding set of viewports that users view web content on. In that sense, it is an excellent direction for the web community to follow because it (1) makes sites and apps more content-focused and (2) reduces bulk by stripping away non essentials which helps pages load faster over mobile speeds and makes responsie designer easier.

Nailed it! Definitely agree with @Guy & @Emily.

I don't think it's a fad. Content is king and "flat" design allows our users to focus on their goals/needs faster.

Flat design is a trend based on the evolution of the web users. There are certain elements that are intuitive by themselves. That is because good design layouts are based on a perfect hierarchy.

Not many talk about Swiss Design when referring to the 'flat design' and I think that's unfortunate. Go back to the 1950's & 60's and you will get some great inspiration for your screen work.

I believe that "Flat" design, as a child of the minimalist/modernist mindset seeks to support the content from behind by removing background distractions and amplifying the content's voice. "Skeuomorphic" design adds its own voice to the experience and often ends up telling a different story than what the content is trying to say, skewing the experience. (In addition it is a cheesy way to bring the analog world to the digital world.)

In the end good design is good design and it is about correctly communicating the message to the user. We shouldn't forget that we are problem solvers not pretty makers.

A very interesting article which is relevant here (If you haven't already read it): "Almost Flat Design" matthewmooredesign.com

I just put up the post "‘Flat Design’ or Swiss Design?" chrisgillisdesign.com with more thoughts on the matter.

Design is at it's core about language and communication, how/what we do ought to communicate why we do it. Perhaps, a name that aligns primarily with a design point of view rather than mere technique? I think it would also be helpful to define what we're after, our intent.

Read more here as I've run out of space: abe.dropmark.com

The label "Flat Design" is a trend but at it's heart is a timeless design ethos. The precept of distilling detail to essentials needed to define an object. Call it Bauhaus, postmodern reduction, every design discipline extolls the virtues of refinement and simplicity. Putting a name on it, turns it into a fad (like Web 2.0) when it should be an intrinsic exercise that all designers strive for whether it's interface, industrial, print or architecture.

But does putting a name on it make it a fad? Bauhaus is named, but that doesn't make Bauhaus a fad. I think you mean that specifically naming it "flat design" and ignoring its routes in Bauhaus or modernism/post-modernism is where we might fall short.

Agree that Bauhaus was named but after the school which taught it rather than a label applied at random to a minor movement in design. Also I would disagree that Bauhaus is not a "fad", first I"m a huge fan, but what I mean is that design/aesthetic had a specific period of popularity.

Of course it hasn't disappeared and is still loved but you don't see the same amount of true "Bauhaus" design work now. Rather like "Web 2.0" is gone but some still love glossy buttons, that's absolutely fine.

Ultimately I suppose I simply believe that these are all evolutions of a core approach to design which is to distill/simplify and I think by giving it a name we set a date and period to it rather than just seeing it as continuous evolution.