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

Material UI

material-ui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 166 posts

Re: Material UI

#61

Post by espadrine »

This is my first introduction to Material Design. I am confused about an aspect of it.

Here[0], we see two separate cards next to each other, with the same dimension, but at a different elevation. As a result, one casts a larger shadow.

Here[1], they specify that "Shadows are never approximated using material". Wouldn't that require that one of those two cards with the same dimension appear to be larger, since it is closer to the eye?

What do they mean by that rule?

[0]: https://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/objects-...

[1]: https://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/material...

Re: Material UI

#62

Post by sucramb »

davedx wrote: post #54
tomelders wrote: post #44

I had a talk with myself at the weekend about making a concerted effort to cut out the snark when I comment on the web.... And I'm about to fall at the first hurdle. Being "on trend" isn't good UI design. But I can see how we got here. Through OS X and iOS, Apple's UI ethos became the gold standard in UI design. It was so well designed that it was easy to imitate and by simply adopting the core elements of Apples UI…

I don't find this post snarky, but from a usability point of view I'd love to hear specifics about where you think these designs fail?

I feel like the same as OP. Change for the sake of change without any real benefits. But with plenty of draw-backs. For example the new Gmail App on Android now uses an almost unreadable font in the overview. It is "designy" but not good for usability - and I still have 100% eye sight.

In general I feel like surrounded by the Microsoft paper clip. There is constantly something animating, popping up or popping with strong colors into your eyes.

Try to find in all the talk about material design the underlying reasons for usability. There aren't any. To me it feels like the emperor's new cloths.

I was about to buy a Nexus 6 but the new Gmail app is a no go for me and I will avoid it as long as possible.

Re: Material UI

#63

Post by 0942v8653 »

uxwtf wrote: post #51

I like the animations, inputs are really what I need today for my UI designs. Checkboxes have different styles in Chrome and Safari. Safari checkboxes look a bit weird as in unchecked mode a rotated green tick is displayed inside a checkbox, and in checked mode one of the tick's lines extends horisontally. In Chrome the checkbox looks really nice though.

OK, I'm glad they didn't actually intend to have the checkboxes look like that :)

Re: Material UI

#64

Post by ThomPete »

tomelders wrote: post #44

I had a talk with myself at the weekend about making a concerted effort to cut out the snark when I comment on the web.... And I'm about to fall at the first hurdle. Being "on trend" isn't good UI design. But I can see how we got here. Through OS X and iOS, Apple's UI ethos became the gold standard in UI design. It was so well designed that it was easy to imitate and by simply adopting the core elements of Apples UI…

The primary principle at least from the point of Apple is to turn the actual content into the UI by allowing for a different kind of visual depth.

What you see right now is first steps towards a UI that will use animation to create a sense of depth and perspective rather than using static visual design to imitate the world around us.

So think about Googles Material Design and Apples iOS design paradigm as a return to content using time (animation) as the skeumorphic replacement.

Whether this is the right or wrong direction is hard to say for now given the trends away from UX and interaction design we will see over the next 10 years.

Re: Material UI

#65

Post by paulojreis »

davedx wrote: post #54
tomelders wrote: post #44

I had a talk with myself at the weekend about making a concerted effort to cut out the snark when I comment on the web.... And I'm about to fall at the first hurdle. Being "on trend" isn't good UI design. But I can see how we got here. Through OS X and iOS, Apple's UI ethos became the gold standard in UI design. It was so well designed that it was easy to imitate and by simply adopting the core elements of Apples UI…

I don't find this post snarky, but from a usability point of view I'd love to hear specifics about where you think these designs fail?

I don't know if he was talking about flatter designs, but (IMO) they might fail because the elements are less affordant. We know that affordances are important so, again IMO, the removal of graphical cues that afford action should be approached with care (and empirically validated).

Re: Material UI

#66

Post by kunstmord »

corford wrote: post #47

Bug report: If I follow the "Demo" link from the homepage, the first demo ("Buttons") works but clicking on any of the others (via the left hand menu) e.g. "Dialog" doesn't do anything. No obvious errors in the console. I'm using FF 33.0.3 on Win7. Edit: looks promising though - just get them bugs ironed out! :)

Same, FF 35.0a2 on OS X 10.9.

Re: Material UI

#68

Post by robmccoll »

ThomPete wrote: post #64
tomelders wrote: post #44

I had a talk with myself at the weekend about making a concerted effort to cut out the snark when I comment on the web.... And I'm about to fall at the first hurdle. Being "on trend" isn't good UI design. But I can see how we got here. Through OS X and iOS, Apple's UI ethos became the gold standard in UI design. It was so well designed that it was easy to imitate and by simply adopting the core elements of Apples UI…

The primary principle at least from the point of Apple is to turn the actual content into the UI by allowing for a different kind of visual depth. What you see right now is first steps towards a UI that will use animation to create a sense of depth and perspective rather than using static visual design to imitate the world around us. So think about Googles Material Design and Apples iOS design paradigm as a return to…

Relying on animation to provide depth and perspective may not be a great idea. Subtle static cues remain a constant reminder on the display even if you aren't focused entirely on the application. Animation is much more heavy handed and isn't always there. If the user misses the transition animation, how do they know how to interact with the resulting static page? Animation also has the potential to slow down users as they become accustomed enough to the interface to know which elements they want to interact with before the animation completes.

Re: Material UI

#69

Post by spain »

Doesn't seem to embody the principles of Material Design other than the flat design and use of colors. For example for the dialog[0] when you click it it just appears out of nowhere instead of sliding in or expanding out from the button. Material Design isn't only about everything being flat but there being good animations to make transitions clear.

I wonder what Google's design team thinks of all these creations masquerading as "Material Design."

[0] http://material-ui.com/#/components/dialog

Re: Material UI

#70

Post by ThomPete »

robmccoll wrote: post #68
ThomPete wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary principle at least from the point of Apple is to turn the actual content into the UI by allowing for a different kind of visual depth. What you see right now is first steps towards a UI that will use animation to create a sense of depth and perspective rather than using static visual design to imitate the world around us. So think about Googles Material Design and Apples iOS design paradigm as a return to…

Relying on animation to provide depth and perspective may not be a great idea. Subtle static cues remain a constant reminder on the display even if you aren't focused entirely on the application. Animation is much more heavy handed and isn't always there. If the user misses the transition animation, how do they know how to interact with the resulting static page? Animation also has the potential to slow down users as…

You have to take a longer perspective on this think about where information is going, think about vectors rather than bitmap, think about non-interaction rather than interaction, think about the complexity of the apps of the future and you will realize that animation might not be such a bad idea. With skeumorphic design you only have the illusion of access to the elements with a flatter design you can programmatically access them and change them which will open up for interesting new visualization opportunities.

With regards to be being heavy handed both apple and google are well aware of that which explains their support for this new way of approach GUI design.

Post reply on HN