51–60 of 115 posts
Everyone stop with this material design bullshit. Just because Google released a new design language with a fancy name doesn't mean you have to mindlessly copy the most shallow parts of it. The fundamentals of UI design didn't change. Carry on.
I think Material works very well on touch surfaces. There are a ton of good design principles that it champions, but the interactions are strange on desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it takes time and is distracting. An interface should be snappy and get out of your way, not try to impress with pointless animations. That screams graphic designer trying and failing to do UX. Which is material in a nutshell really.
What's some of the best UX design you've done? Can you tell me about affordances, and why the Materials design falls short on them? On desktop? On touch devices? For us developers, a command line and vim (or emacs, not trying to start a war) can be the epitome of UX -- once we learn all those shortcuts. But for users, there's a lot more that comes into play. Indicating to a user when something can be interacted with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider it as high distraction. Yeah, sure it looks great in demos and talks, but do we really want to have two seconds animation every time one switchs tab? Or would you like to have this kind of design in tool you use everyday, editor or IDE?
IIRC, in the design guidelines longer animations should be limited to context switches, where anything under two seconds is "acceptable speed" and anything under half a second is "fast". There's no need to use the most extreme animations for minor actions in the interface, and the linked page is obviously a showcase, not a real application.
I get that animations can help users sometimes. But these animations are waaaaayyyyy too long. Everyone stop with this material design bullshit. Just because Google released a new design language with a fancy name doesn't mean you have to mindlessly copy the most shallow parts of it. The fundamentals of UI design didn't change. Carry on.
God forbid I ever spend time making something and put it on hacker news. Dismissing an idea doesn't take any work. Good job, fezvrasta.
God forbid I ever spend time making something and put it on hacker news. Dismissing an idea doesn't take any work. Good job, fezvrasta.
Sorry, I know that's exactly how my comment reads. However, given how many CSS frameworks are posted to HN everyday I think it's reasonable to expect at very least the demo to be mobile friendly, especially if it's touting material design.
I get that animations can help users sometimes. But these animations are waaaaayyyyy too long. Everyone stop with this material design bullshit. Just because Google released a new design language with a fancy name doesn't mean you have to mindlessly copy the most shallow parts of it. The fundamentals of UI design didn't change. Carry on.
But stop? I disagree because Google's material design is not about the animations. Its about using minimal appearance chrome to strengthen UI context. Is it part of something, or is it "laying" on top of it? Is it approaching me, or laying back? Its 2,5D.
For example note how the button shadow intuively distinguishes it from a card or other UI-panel.
I see good things for Material Design whenever we have 2,5D or 3D displays in our devices. And so wil iOS with its icon/background parallax effect, which for now is only a gimmick. These where basically made with that in mind.
This project raised a question for me: what is the copyright or licensing situation with Google’s Material Design? The specification itself appears to be copyright Google, but several implementations of the specification on the Web are under permissive licenses: Google’s Web Starter Kit ( https://developers.google.com/web/starter-kit/ ) uses the Apache License 2.0 Polymer is implementing Material Design for its Paper…