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

Google Design

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 193 posts

Re: Google Design

#81

Post by FreakyT »

jfuhrman wrote: post #59
FreakyT wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's exactly what people said with their "Designed for IE" websites back during 2000 to 2004. Hardly. Mozilla/Gecko may have been obscure at the time, but it was under active development. Opera is very definitely dead. > Whatever happened to coding according to web standards? So by "web standards" do you mean "older web standards supported by an outdated browser"?

>Hardly. Mozilla/Gecko may have been obscure at the time, but it was under active development. O Firefox had about 3% share at the end of 2004, even less before that. >Opera is very definitely dead Huh what? Opera is still under active development. http://blogs.opera.com/desktop/ >So by "web standards" do you mean "older web standards supported by an outdated browser"? No, I mean current web standards.

Yes, but that is based on Chromium, so it really isn't Opera. I assumed you meant "classic" Opera, since I would assume that the Chromium-based product would render sites equivalently to Chromium.

Re: Google Design

#82

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

joezydeco wrote: post #11
troycarlson wrote: post #10

Am I the only one who gets a headache trying to decipher tile layouts like this? My eyes bounce back and forth and I still have no idea how the information is structured or what's important. I appreciate that Google is sharing all of this though.

It's gonna get worse before it gets better.... http://beta.united.com/ It it a button? Or a dialog box? Maybe it's an ad. Flip a coin!

Woah, it's like a mashup of the old site and Windows 8 live tiles...

Re: Google Design

#83

Post by exodust »

Material design doesn't scale up very well. On desktop we end up with huge flat areas or chunky images stretched beyond their size.

Massive scaled chunks. Even on mobile it's just a stack of coloured boxes.

I like some aspects of material design like the paper philosophy, the fine shadows, buttons, and other things that do well on mobile. But more work is needed to improve the desktop interface.

Remember seeing iPhone apps scaled up to iPad screen size? That's how a lot of websites look now on desktop screens.

Re: Google Design

#84

Post by legohead »

troycarlson wrote: post #10

Am I the only one who gets a headache trying to decipher tile layouts like this? My eyes bounce back and forth and I still have no idea how the information is structured or what's important. I appreciate that Google is sharing all of this though.

I've had Androids since way back, and while the UI has continuously gotten prettier, it has gotten harder and harder to use.

I can 'feel' these new concepts as they roll them out, and then just get frustrated by them. It feels like they come up with certain standards/rules, and then have to adapt their UIs to it. So buttons are put in confusing places, with weird icons.

Take the phone dialer for instance. I press the phone icon. How do I get to a dial pad? Why didn't it just give me a damn dialpad to begin with? The dialpad button is a little blue square with dots in some kind of matrix that sort of looks like a dialpad. Every time - every time - I make a call, I have to go through this ritual again of figuring out where the dialpad is. Even though I know where it is, it doesn't look or feel right. And that's just the beginning. The whole dialing process, finding contacts, etc. has been totally broken. Just so the UI is pretty and meshes well with itself. And this is a phone!

Re: Google Design

#85

Post by gone35 »

thirdsun wrote: post #8
CHY872 wrote: post #3

Web page is nice-looking, but isn't snappy (at least not on my laptop).

Works fine on iOS. Fast and flawless in fact.

Not so. It crashes Safari gloriously on my old iPad. Every time.

Not that I'm too excited to hear Google --Google-- go all Jonathan Ive and wistfully pontificate about design though...

Re: Google Design

#86

Post by chillingeffect »

antimora wrote: post #69

For strange reasons I am getting the same vibe I got when I was viewing Google's Wave promotion, as if Google had uncovered the best thing ever. Everyone at Google seems super excited about their new things. I suppose when they're in their own little silo universe everything seems exciting and right. Again I am only speaking about the feeling I got after watching the promotion video.

You are totally right. I would just add that the meme "designers are rockstars and vital to the information age" doesn't originate from Google. It originated from designers themselves. The designers have now fully infected Google... None of these problems are new. People have now contemplated them for an entire generation in science fiction books and movies, video game interfaces, CAD interfaces, music instrument interfaces, art, Xerox, Media Lab, etc.

Really though, animated interfaces are a short-term fad which is subject to boom and bust cycles just like 90s icons graduated to high-res icons and then back to microsoft tile icons. When peoples' hardware can no longer handle the animations and they learn to associate animation with skipped frames, impeded workflow, etc., the cycle will revert itself.

Re: Google Design

#87

Post by imaginamundo »

ryanSrich wrote: post #72
erispoe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means programmatic design. You design relations and interactions between things instead of coloring pixels.

But ultimately the pixels are colored, are they not? To me this reads as a way to acceptably talk about degrading designers... "Well we aren't employing those pesky 'Pixel Pushers' anymore. No. We are moving towards a jazz inspired design, it's more important and sophisticated than just coloring pixels" Please. Give it a rest. (^ In case it needs to be pointed out that's not an actual quote from anything anyone said.…

Hover the search icon and you have the grid you wish.

I would also do the same thing, isn't because a thing is hidden or need a gesture/action (in this case, the hover status), that the thing doesn't need to be in the grid.

Re: Google Design

#88

Post by dman »

antimora wrote: post #69

For strange reasons I am getting the same vibe I got when I was viewing Google's Wave promotion, as if Google had uncovered the best thing ever. Everyone at Google seems super excited about their new things. I suppose when they're in their own little silo universe everything seems exciting and right. Again I am only speaking about the feeling I got after watching the promotion video.

Spot on, this really gives me peak bubble kind of vibes.

Re: Google Design

#89

Post by spotman »

troycarlson wrote: post #10

Am I the only one who gets a headache trying to decipher tile layouts like this? My eyes bounce back and forth and I still have no idea how the information is structured or what's important. I appreciate that Google is sharing all of this though.

No, this website, combined with the fonts, makes it look very out of place, and just awkward.

Re: Google Design

#90

Post by nightpool »

xixixao wrote: post #49
FreakyT wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opera basically is dead though, so I don't think one can reasonably expect new websites to test for it. Now, if it didn't work in Firefox or IE11, then that would be significantly more questionable. Edit: I'm assuming we're talking about classic Opera, not the Chromium build that is currently called Opera but is actually Chromium.

The layout is pretty broken in Firefox.

Which part? Seems laggy but fine for me in Firefox 38 (stable)
Post reply on HN