Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Material You – The next stage for Material Design

material.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#91

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

reikonomusha wrote: post #15

I can’t help but feel Google’s only consistency is in their trying to be clean, cool, and innovative, but not actually getting the details right, and ending up looking juvenile and Fisher-Price-like. On mobile, the font is too big and too ragged. The colors and shapes look like a Kleenex box aesthetic. The spacing isn’t all that great. I’m absolutely puzzled why a behemoth like Google can’t have exceptional, human de…

Apple sells tangible goods. Google is a middleman selling online ad services. Apple's customers are consumers. Google's customers are advertisers. Do advertisers care about Google's choice of colors and shapes. Google only needs to be effective at one thing: selling online ad services.

Without advertising revenue the middleman is doomed. Not true for companies, like hardware vendors, that sell products (instead of giving them away as a means to enable more collection of data about users, who will be the targets of online ads).

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#92

Post by Rebelgecko »

kaoD wrote: post #85
Rebelgecko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

distance = rate * time For a mortgage company, you don't have a ton of flexibility with your rates— there's a little wiggle room but for the most part your rates will be correlated with the Federal Reserve's interest rates. However, you can control the distance, which lets you alter the logo's perception of time.

Not trying to sound rude, but this looks like it was generated by GPT3. What do you mean?

I actually just got into the beta for the GPT-3 API but I think OpenAI's TOS say that I'm only allowed to use the API for the purpose I mentioned in my beta application (writing computer assisted sasquatch erotica). So HN comments would violate their TOS, not to mention the other ethical quandaries.

The poster above had a question about the relationship between distance traveled and elapsed time. There's a simple mathematical relationship between the two- when your rate is fixed they're directly proportional. A distance that is 2x as far will take twice as long to traverse.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#93

Post by kaoD »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #92
kaoD wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to sound rude, but this looks like it was generated by GPT3. What do you mean?

I actually just got into the beta for the GPT-3 API but I think OpenAI's TOS say that I'm only allowed to use the API for the purpose I mentioned in my beta application (writing computer assisted sasquatch erotica). So HN comments would violate their TOS, not to mention the other ethical quandaries. The poster above had a question about the relationship between distance traveled and elapsed time. There's a simple mat…

But how is that related with vanishing points?

EDIT: To give a bit more context, in 3D geometry, isometric (and other orthographic projections) are just projections which do not apply a perspective divide. No time component anywhere.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17269686/why-do-we-need-...

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#94

Post by ywoski »

pjmlp wrote: post #50
EvilEy3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just listed 5 unrelated teams that have nothing in common. What's you point?

Oh but they do, each of them wants us to write apps and devices with their OS/technology stack. Lets see which one of them wins out the Google political wars on the long term of Google Attention Span (TM).

Eh kind of but you are mixing the OS with the application framework to make it look like more things exist.

PWA for ChromeOS, Flutter for Fuchsia (but yes it is multi-platform), JetPack Compose for Android (but does have some multi-platform stuff coming out).

So really it's three.

PWAs, Flutter, and Jetpack Compose.

Of which I think PWAs rightly exist alongside a native solution.

Flutter is sort of the odd one out and not sure where it will be long term. Although it's becoming more clear Fuchsia is probably going to be for IoT devices, so I could see Flutter being used as an application framework for them (which IMHO makes a lot of sense.)

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#95

Post by ywoski »

I like this design but I wonder how many apps will actually adopt this. I don't see Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, etc rushing to adopt this (it largely conflicts with their own design language.)

Also a lot of smaller companies rarely update theming for apps so I don't see them doing it either (I doubt my banking app cares.) I have a feeling few apps will actually update to this leading to fragmentation. Anyways we will see.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#96

Post by izacus »

reikonomusha wrote: post #78
izacus wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest this just sounds like you're used to whatever Apple is doing and nothing Google would do (except outright copy iOS) would feel "ok" for you. That's fine - we get used to stuff and rant when it changes in ways we don't expect. But the beta on my Android phone looks amazing and IMO better than iPadOS I have on a tablet.

I disagree. You really have to appreciate the scale of Apple’s efforts, and look beyond iOS, which everybody always gets fixated on. This is much broader than “I prefer how iOS looks”. Their documentation, hardware, software, marketing, audio communications, videos and commercials, stores, clothing, packaging, etc. exude consistency and extraordinary care to visual design. Apple’s design is pervasive and truly their…

I work extensively with Android and Apple iOS/macOS (as part of mobile development and simply as a user of hardware) and I think your claim about Apple is pretty much disconnected from reality. As soon as you step outside the marketing veneer, there's plenty of Apple that is really far from "pervasive" of their "identity". Try straying a bit outside the most commonly used documentation pages, most commonly used customer journeys or even use macOS for extended bit of time and you'll see how your claim simply doesn't hold up.

I feel you're just buying way too much into the Apple marketing schtick.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#97

Post by throwaddzuzxd »

izacus wrote: post #72
reikonomusha wrote: post #15

I can’t help but feel Google’s only consistency is in their trying to be clean, cool, and innovative, but not actually getting the details right, and ending up looking juvenile and Fisher-Price-like. On mobile, the font is too big and too ragged. The colors and shapes look like a Kleenex box aesthetic. The spacing isn’t all that great. I’m absolutely puzzled why a behemoth like Google can’t have exceptional, human de…

To be honest this just sounds like you're used to whatever Apple is doing and nothing Google would do (except outright copy iOS) would feel "ok" for you. That's fine - we get used to stuff and rant when it changes in ways we don't expect. But the beta on my Android phone looks amazing and IMO better than iPadOS I have on a tablet.

> To be honest this just sounds like you're used to whatever Apple is doing and nothing Google would do (except outright copy iOS) would feel "ok" for you.

I've used an Android phone (including 2 Nexus 5x and a Pixel 3a, my current one) my whole life and always thought it looked okay, but not great. I've had an OnCall iPhone for a few months though, and everything just looks way more polished, sane, and even comfortable. The animations are smoother. The colors are more beautiful. The content density is better. And mainly, everything looks less generic.

It's a feeling and I'm only a sample size of 1, but I don't think "you're just used to it" is the correct answer here.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#98

Post by mhoad »

pjmlp wrote: post #50
EvilEy3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just listed 5 unrelated teams that have nothing in common. What's you point?

Oh but they do, each of them wants us to write apps and devices with their OS/technology stack. Lets see which one of them wins out the Google political wars on the long term of Google Attention Span (TM).

Honestly from the outside looking in when you look at the big picture I don’t find it that much of a mystery. Long term plans are a unified model of computing under the Fuschia umbrella which is going to run everywhere from iot to servers. I don’t think they are subtle about wanting to control the entire stack of computing.

All the pieces are already in place (in various early stage forms) to make that move eventually from Android and Linux to Fuschia.

Additionally, I think everyone sees Flutter for web as some kind of joke right now but it seems pretty clear to me that this too is an early stage play to kill the idea of “native apps that live inside a closed garden App Store environment”.

I think we are close to seeing a world where the internet (as most people use it) is going to be moving away from the traditional document based browser approach to something a bit more app centric before long.

I find things like the Chrome team’s project Fugu suddenly make a LOT more sense when you start looking elsewhere at other things that seem unrelated at first (K8s, Fuschia and a few others come to mind).

They are all aiming to meet in the middle before long. People are already saying Safari is the new IE for example and I think that is about to become much more apparent in the next couple of years.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#99

Post by mhoad »

reikonomusha wrote: post #15

I can’t help but feel Google’s only consistency is in their trying to be clean, cool, and innovative, but not actually getting the details right, and ending up looking juvenile and Fisher-Price-like. On mobile, the font is too big and too ragged. The colors and shapes look like a Kleenex box aesthetic. The spacing isn’t all that great. I’m absolutely puzzled why a behemoth like Google can’t have exceptional, human de…

The corporate arm of Google has some seriously strange Scientology style vibes about it and I think that is a big driver naturally in their approach to design.

If you go and read the material design docs for example, this isn’t my full time area of expertise but I don’t see anything controversial in there and there is no way in hell that they haven’t tested the hell out of it from every possible angle but the outcome is honestly kind of soulless.

My actual full time area of expertise is in running A/B tests and I’ll be the first to say that the link between “good aesthetics” and what actually works is much weaker than you might expect. See Amazon for another clear example.

Re: Material You – The next stage for Material Design

#100

Post by reikonomusha »

izacus wrote: post #96
reikonomusha wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. You really have to appreciate the scale of Apple’s efforts, and look beyond iOS, which everybody always gets fixated on. This is much broader than “I prefer how iOS looks”. Their documentation, hardware, software, marketing, audio communications, videos and commercials, stores, clothing, packaging, etc. exude consistency and extraordinary care to visual design. Apple’s design is pervasive and truly their…

I work extensively with Android and Apple iOS/macOS (as part of mobile development and simply as a user of hardware) and I think your claim about Apple is pretty much disconnected from reality. As soon as you step outside the marketing veneer, there's plenty of Apple that is really far from "pervasive" of their "identity". Try straying a bit outside the most commonly used documentation pages, most commonly used custo…

I don’t think you’re right, but what’s more interesting to me is just how much our opinions seem to diverge! I’m a developer as well, I use Linux (Debian with StumpWM) as my daily driver, and Mac for work. I’m pretty familiar with Macs, macOS, and iOS I’d say.

There could be so many reasons why we diverge, but I suspect we’d probably disagree on what we consider a “design philosophy” or “the details” in the first place.

Maybe it’s true that I only see the “common” things (and it’s great we agree that the “common” things are consistent!), but I’m curious where you see seriously inconsistent or plainly bad visual design at the proverbial fray that doesn’t exist in other ecosystems of this scale.

Post reply on HN