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

151–160 of 193 posts

Re: Google Design

#151

Post by meesterdude »

Wow that's bad. That's like microsoft bad. Which, is actually fairly insightful; is that what happens when an organization gets too big, they lose sight of what's actually good anymore and just do design by committee?

Also, it's as if... there is only one design. Like, they figured everything out for you and you should just use that. Bootstrap is not so different in this, but i get the vibe that this isn't so meant to be tweaked; that's the air I get about it at least. That what's there is what you should use. Which, is really arrogant, because it googlfies the web, and by no means for the better.

But really, I don't know what they're thinking, and I hope this doesn't become more of a thing; but they only seem to keep pedaling it.

Re: Google Design

#152

Post by skazka16 »

The first time I saw material design, I thought it's a cool concept. I liked it. I also liked applications built with this concept. At first, those apps looked...different. After several months, today, when I see anything designed with a material design idea behind it, I have a strange feeling. All the material applications/websites look like they were designed by the same designer. Imagine there are 10 websites and only one of them is designed with material concept. How hard would it be to find this 1 out of 10? It seems a fairly simple task to me. I'm not a designer, but I never had exactly the same feeling before (i.e. surfing through thousands of flat web sites). I'm not sure if I want to see thousands of material websites. Does anyone else experience the same?

Re: Google Design

#153

Post by christianmann »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #141
_random_ wrote: post #44

Well done Microsoft: inspiring not one, but two major competitors. Metro aka Modern aka Material rocks!

Fortunately, people really like Material design. Metro was rejected and ridiculed by the public.

No, they don't. Look at this thread.

Re: Google Design

#154

Post by JesperRavn »

Google and Apple have both been trolled by the critics of so called skeuomorphism.

While leather binders and bookshelves are excessive, Apple's pre-flat iOS design was really good, and all the criticism that lead to flat/material design was unjustified.

Re: Google Design

#155

Post by skuunk1 »

skazka16 wrote: post #152

The first time I saw material design, I thought it's a cool concept. I liked it. I also liked applications built with this concept. At first, those apps looked...different. After several months, today, when I see anything designed with a material design idea behind it, I have a strange feeling. All the material applications/websites look like they were designed by the same designer. Imagine there are 10 websites and…

I think that's the point of material design. It's the design equivalent of egoless programming. You should not be able to tell who wrote/designed something if it is done properly.

Re: Google Design

#156

Post by jgalt212 »

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…

> while the UI has continuously gotten prettier, it has gotten harder and harder to use

that in a nutshell, is how I feel about Microsoft Office.

Re: Google Design

#157

Post by homulilly »

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.

Not to mention all the wasted space. A menu with 16 items shouldn't take up 7 pages, it's like they're trying to give me RSI.

Re: Google Design

#158

Post by joezydeco »

Jare wrote: post #76
joezydeco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

That site is very clean, readable, understandable and (it seems) perfectly usable.

It's better than the current setup. But there are still some oddball things in there.

For example: why is that credit card ad hanging off the center tile like that? Why isn't it shaped like the other tiles?

Re: Google Design

#159

Post by sesutton »

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.

The whole video felt like something Apple would put out.

Re: Google Design

#160

Post by Animats »

Malcx wrote: post #148
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 not just the layout, the terminology is based on presumed knowledge. The second panel of information is a video covering "color theory" and goes off almost straight away talking about using "the 500s" and moving to "the 700s". I've no clue what this means. What is a 700? Strangely a google search yields no results as to what this means, but the video takes it as fact I should know what it's on about.

They're referring to Pantone series 500 and 700 colors.[1] Obviously, you're expected to understand the Pantone Color System.

There's a whole color industry, and a trade organization for it, the Color Association of the United States. They're not as influential as they used to be, but they still orchestrate, among other things, the cycle of consumer electronics from white to black to off-white to grey and back to white again. (You thought that just happened by accident?) The Material Design people are trying to promote that concept for web sites, so last year's web sites will look dated as the recommended colors change.

[1] http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/color_xref.aspx [2] http://www.colorassociation.com

Post reply on HN