Is skeuomorphism being diluted to the point of irrelevance? I understood it to be _clear_ translations of design elements from one object to another. So, making a computer calendar look like a physical calendar that you would flip through on your wall.
As used in the article, it's so vague as to be unhelpful: gradients are skeuomorphism? What were they copied from? What other object are they trying to imitate?
Using the example of nest illustrates this well -- the interface shows an exact replica of the UI on the physical device to control it. Does the rotary control make as much sense on a computer screen? Probably not. Is it still a good design decision? Yes. Is it flat? No.
we often apply gradients and drop shadows to elements that are meant to be buttons, because buttons in the real world have these features, even though they are unnecessary in the setting of a computer user interface.
So it's skeuomorphism because it's trying to look like a physical push-button.
A gradient from one tone/tint/shade to another of the same hue implies one thing: directional light. If directional light is visible on an object, that object exists in 3D space, at least in the mind. If that object exists in 3D space, then it has tangible form. If a UI element has tangible form, instead of only function, then it is skeumorphic.
At least, that's what the article seems to be saying.
As used in the article, it's so vague as to be unhelpful: gradients are skeuomorphism? What were they copied from? What other object are they trying to imitate?
Using the example of nest illustrates this well -- the interface shows an exact replica of the UI on the physical device to control it. Does the rotary control make as much sense on a computer screen? Probably not. Is it still a good design decision? Yes. Is it flat? No.