Skeumorphism isn't just resembling things from the real world. It's using simulated physical object styling and detail in a user interface to signify affordances in the design.

A penguin icon is not a skeumorphism because it being a penguin doesn't tell us anything about how to use the icon.

If the icon were a rendering of a physical push-button, then it would be skeumorphic, because the button image would suggest to us that we can click it.

Unless you're trying to make the argument that penguins deserve boops on their beaks.

▲

diego_moita 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I am not sure the term is so strict and applies only to "controls" in GUIs.

Case in point: the Wikipedia page on skeuomorphism refers to objects outside of the domain of GUI language. It also covers physical objects referencing other physical objects (e.g.: skeuomorphic pottery, wood architecture imitating stone, plastic objects imitating metal, etc.)

	▲	moron4hire 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but we're talking about digital interfaces right now. Even when considering faux finishes on real world materials, that standard doesn't apply here. Unlike, say, the wooden shingles cut to look like stone on Colonial era architecture (e.g. George Washington's home at Mt. Vernon) that are trying to convince us they are something they aren't, the penguin icon is not trying to, nor would it ever, convince us it's a real penguin. Going back to my first sentence, yes, skeuomorphism is a concept older than computer interfaces. When the term is applied to computer interfaces, it has to be adapted. Since current display tech could never create something even close to a convincing simulacrum of, say, a notebook, the term then gets adapted to mean that the use of skeuomorphism attempts to communicate functionally. Much like how "brutalist" Web design has nothing to do with the Brutalist architecture movement.