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

121–130 of 193 posts

Re: Google Design

#121

Post by magicalist »

wavefunction wrote: post #78
wavefunction wrote: post #29

Our design team is trying to use Material guidelines in an upcoming app. I needed to remind them that while there are good elements in the guidelines, there is a lot that isn't good and they need to leave those parts behind. This certainly reinforces that feeling for me.

lol, downvoted for expressing anti-Material sentiment. Google design guidelines as put in place by Google are hit-or-miss. Just look at switching between accounts on say, Google Analytics. Multiple view refreshes and double the user actions to do what once could be done from the same view with a click to logout and a click to login followed by typing your credentials.

Analytics (the app and the site) don't look like they've been updated to Material Design, they look basically like they always have.

Re: Google Design

#122

Post by Aldo_MX »

FreakyT wrote: post #81
jfuhrman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Opera is not dead; Presto is dead.

Re: Google Design

#123

Post by [deleted] »

dman wrote: post #79

http://www.google.com/design/videos/making-material-design/ - cannot make up my mind if this video is purposely designed to come across as farce. I could easily imagine this being in a satirical comedy film.

[deleted]

Re: Google Design

#124

Post by calsy »

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!

This is not material design.

Also material design is not a safe guard for implementing crap user interfaces. In this case, if you decide to have moving tiles that disorientate the user and think 'well its material design', no that's actually just poor design.

Re: Google Design

#125

Post by jfuhrman »

DanBC wrote: post #112
fsck--off wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contrast of the blue text(62a9e3) in the dropdown menu against the pure white background fails all WCAG guidelines. So it is not perfectly usable.

Do you have a link to that guideline? I know there are a bunch about allowing users to override whatever the webdesigner specifies, and about having sensible contrast.

WCAG 2.0 level AA requires a contrast ratio of 4.5:1 for normal text (14 point and bold or larger) and 3:1 for large text (18 point or larger). Level AAA requires a contrast ratio of 7:1 for normal text and 4.5:1 for large text.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

Re: Google Design

#126

Post by capex »

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.

Its probably designed for a phone/tablet audience, and that's where material design shines. Porting it to the desktop web doesn't produce the same results because you're not 'touching' the screen.

Re: Google Design

#127

Post by JoshTriplett »

legohead wrote: post #84
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…

On the other hand, a dialpad takes up a lot of room, and for many cell users, the common case is calling a contact, not dialing a number. The only time I ever use the dialpad is for "press N to Do a Thing" interfaces, such as my voicemail (which automatically opens the dialpad for exactly that reason) or my employer's conference-call system.

Re: Google Design

#128

Post by joeyspn »

IMO Material Design is going to have the same problem as Bootstrap. There will be so many apps and websites with that look and feel that the spec will become boring in no time.

For a serious app I'd never use plain MD, the same way I never use plain bootstrap. Each web/app experience should have its own identity. When everything looks and feels the same way, the "wow factor" disappears.

Re: Google Design

#129

Post by freyr »

Putting dots in the space between words makes it harder to distinguish word boundaries, which makes the text difficult to read.

If design hinders usability, it's not good design.

Re: Google Design

#130

Post by Artemis2 »

nightpool wrote: post #114
Artemis2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thing is infuriating, I never remember how to create a new file in Google Drive now (it's the bottom right FAB located at a place yet unexplored in every desktop UI ever).

Huh? This is a screenshot of my google drive: http://imgur.com/oGjzhTJ as you can see, "new" is in the same place its always been. No FAB. EDIT: in retrospect, you might be talking about the docs site. (docs.google.com rather then drive.google.com) I spose the only thing I have to say about that is that no design guidelines are a magic bullet, and that I have no idea why they even have that separate docs site.

> you might be talking about the docs site

That's the one! Google's products are so confusing sometimes.

Post reply on HN