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

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Material UI

#111

Post by gohrt »

orbifold wrote: post #85
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 current trend is rooted in the fact that computer displays approach the visual fidelity of paper prints by now (> 300dpi). Consequently a more print like design language is adopted, which often features a small selection of colours and simple geometric shapes. The large variety in print design demonstrates that this is not an unreasonable restriction. In my eyes the translucency of windows in Yosemite is a much n…

When Windows 7 did translucency, it was considred ugly. Now when Apple does it, it's good design.

Re: Material UI

#112

Post by gohrt »

petilon wrote: post #98
davedx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you read Pogue's review of the new Android? Here's an excerpt from the review: "Unfortunately, there’s so little ornamentation that there are no cues left to tell you when something is tappable. What’s a button, what’s a label, what’s a heading? You won’t know till you try tapping." Full review: https://www.yahoo.com/tech/android-5-0-lollipop-lighter-simp...

Awkwardly, the "design design" is past that -- the guidelines say to use shadows to create buttons. But the deployed design is using the older design design that didn't realize that.

Re: Material UI

#113

Post by gohrt »

MarkMc wrote: post #72
davedx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd love to hear specifics about where you think these designs fail? I actually like the 'flat' look, but one thing I hate is the drop-down menu in Chrome for Android. Here's what I'm talking about: http://goo.gl/41iRZk When the menu is displayed it takes about half a second to display. Every menu item is...slowly...faded...in...one...after..the...other. Give me Windows 3.1 where you click and the menu displays ins…

Office 2007(?) had that fade-in menu gimmick.

Amusing and sad to watch mobile evolution recapitulate desktop design, not skipping over the dumb ideas.

Re: Material UI

#114

Post by bennettfeely »

MarkMc wrote: post #72
davedx wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd love to hear specifics about where you think these designs fail? I actually like the 'flat' look, but one thing I hate is the drop-down menu in Chrome for Android. Here's what I'm talking about: http://goo.gl/41iRZk When the menu is displayed it takes about half a second to display. Every menu item is...slowly...faded...in...one...after..the...other. Give me Windows 3.1 where you click and the menu displays ins…

And while they are at it, put the dang refresh button back in the url bar. I have never used the speech input button to enter a url into the field. One tap becomes two taps to do something as common as refreshing the page.

Re: Material UI

#115

Post by carlob »

Why can't I use esc to dismiss the dialog? Why do arrows in menus also scroll the page? Is this because this is not pure CSS? Would this be a problem for accessibility?

Re: Material UI

#116

Post by tomelders »

petilon wrote: post #94
orbifold wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current trend is rooted in the fact that computer displays approach the visual fidelity of paper prints by now (> 300dpi). Consequently a more print like design language is adopted, which often features a small selection of colours and simple geometric shapes. The large variety in print design demonstrates that this is not an unreasonable restriction. In my eyes the translucency of windows in Yosemite is a much n…

Unlike print, computer user interfaces are interactive. When you adopt a print-like design language you remove cues that indicate how to interact with the interface. For examples of how Apple's new UI is less usable than their old UI see: http://uxcritique.tumblr.com

I have to echo this sentiment. Comparisons to print design do not hold up to event he most casual scrutiny.

Re: Material UI

#118

Post by tomelders »

igravious wrote: post #58
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 see no snark on display. I also see no arguments or reasons on display to support your position. That is to say: 1) I can see that you don't like Material but _why_ do you not like it? Because it's new is not a reason because it can be both new _and_ adhere to tried and tested design principles, put forward new ideas for consideration, and be aesthetically pleasing 2) Why don't you like iOS's new UI language?

This is the second time in the thread that I've been asked this, so here's my non answer.

I feel that there's plenty of literature out there that details the faults and flaws in all the new UI languages from different vendors, and unless I write my magnum opus on UI design, I'm only going to be able to offer broad strokes commentary that would be child's play to pick apart on the surface and just drag us all into a meandering argument.

And I feel I factored this into my original comment. For example, I specifically avoided the word 'flat'. There's nothing inherently wrong with something being 'flat', and there are plenty of scenarios where one could quite easily argue in favour of a flat design over a 'lickable' drop-shadowy visual feast. So to mention it in passing wouldn't be worthwhile.

But 'flat' is only one adjective you can use to describe the current UI trend. Many have been referred to in this thread. Animation, depth, ui-as-content and so on. The topic is greater than the sum of it's parts. I also feel that there are also no absolute right or wrongs and I didn't want to kick off one of those sorts of debates stroke arguments. I suppose I'm not scrutinising the implementations but rather questioning the motives.

In addition, my comment was as much about 'how we got here' rather than the problems with 'where we're at', which I believe totally undermines the current state of UI design. For that, I don't think there is much out there to support my view other than the history we've lived through, and we can each interpret that as we see fit. So that part you can take or leave. I offer it as an opinion. I believe the opinion will hold up to scrutiny, but at this moment in time, it's anecdotal.

In summary; I was deliberately vague.

Re: Material UI

#119

Post by nogridbag »

Nicely done. Material design looks great on Android. I'm not sure if I'm sold on material design for desktop use. I started building a material design look and feel for a new web app we're building and besides the fact that it lacked all the subtle animations no one really was digging the vibrant colors, flat buttons, and drop shadows. We ditched it for a more conservative theme and so far we've had no complaints.

Any Inbox users here? What do you think of the full desktop web app for Inbox? Personally while I love the mobile material design version, there's just something off about the desktop version.

Re: Material UI

#120

Post by FlailFast »

nogridbag wrote: post #119

Nicely done. Material design looks great on Android. I'm not sure if I'm sold on material design for desktop use. I started building a material design look and feel for a new web app we're building and besides the fact that it lacked all the subtle animations no one really was digging the vibrant colors, flat buttons, and drop shadows. We ditched it for a more conservative theme and so far we've had no complaints. An…

Inbox user chiming in: I actually like the desktop interface, and it's nice to not have to change mental context when using Inbox on mobile vs the desktop (probably the best, if more subtle, benefit to the Material overhaul of Google's services). My biggest gripe is the more restrictive keyboard shortcuts compared to Gmail, which basically necessitates using a mouse for some operations. But I imagine that will be remedied over time.
Post reply on HN