Hmm. Material design is clicking twice on the play button to launch a Youtube video.
You have to click play three times on mobile. Try it.
On Google Chrome on my Android no less. What a joke. The video controls kept appearing unprompted too.
Google Design
181–190 of 193 posts
Re: Google Design
#182Material 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 iPhon…
It doesn't scale down well either, on mobile everything is too spaced out so the information density is terrible. The calendar app on android is a farce. They've also released the 'improved' notes app, you now have to press buttons twice just to add a note, it's frustrating and totally idiotic. A hard to use notes app, great job Material.
Could be just poor implementation for those apps of material design - which you'd hope is fundamentally good at heart.
It does seem fairly casual. Even the Google designers in the video weren't unified in a definition, so it sounds open and unconstrained. Although I wouldn't put it past Google to hide an on-brand agenda right there in the colour theories. One thing I'd move away from is the obsession/requirement of bright colours. Muted earthy colours would work well too in the right combinations for maximum emotional effect on unsuspecting visitors!
Re: Google Design
#183http://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.
I think there's a major difference:
- When Apple talks about design, they do talk about design; - When Google talks about design, they talk about swishing, swirling, rippling effects and all that jazz. Not design, basically.
Again, this is mistaking design for decoration. And this is something that engineering-driven companies typically do, when they try to say out loud that they care about design (or, in reality, when they try to look cool and fashionable/hip/whatever).
Re: Google Design
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't scale down well either, on mobile everything is too spaced out so the information density is terrible. The calendar app on android is a farce. They've also released the 'improved' notes app, you now have to press buttons twice just to add a note, it's frustrating and totally idiotic. A hard to use notes app, great job Material.
Could be just poor implementation for those apps of material design - which you'd hope is fundamentally good at heart. It does seem fairly casual. Even the Google designers in the video weren't unified in a definition, so it sounds open and unconstrained. Although I wouldn't put it past Google to hide an on-brand agenda right there in the colour theories. One thing I'd move away from is the obsession/requirement of b…
Not really, like mentioned elsewhere in the thread the add button in the bottom right is supposed to be a menu instead of an action.
That means in Material there is no way to do the most common actions if you use that as designed. Like the mail app I am using at the moment has made that button both "reply" and "fwd" when you're in an email, which is frustrating as hell when 95% of the time I want to reply.
But if they just made it reply, where do they put fwd?
Re: Google Design
#185The design gives no indication of what's clickable. Reminds me of those Flash games where you frantically click on things trying to find out what does something. Except now, everything is a flat-shaded rectangle. The input side seems confused. In their guidelines, they talk about buttons having a drop shadow, and less shadow when depressed.[1] Fine. But not all buttons have a shadow, and not all objects with a shadow…
> It's what you get when you put graphic designers in charge of a user interface.
You're wrong. That's what you get when engineering-companies start to care about design: they think design means decoration and don't focus on how it works, just on how it looks. A real graphic designer would know better than to fiddle around rippling effects when real issues are at stake.
Re: Google Design
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be just poor implementation for those apps of material design - which you'd hope is fundamentally good at heart. It does seem fairly casual. Even the Google designers in the video weren't unified in a definition, so it sounds open and unconstrained. Although I wouldn't put it past Google to hide an on-brand agenda right there in the colour theories. One thing I'd move away from is the obsession/requirement of b…
Not really, like mentioned elsewhere in the thread the add button in the bottom right is supposed to be a menu instead of an action. That means in Material there is no way to do the most common actions if you use that as designed. Like the mail app I am using at the moment has made that button both "reply" and "fwd" when you're in an email, which is frustrating as hell when 95% of the time I want to reply. But if the…
"the add button in the bottom right is supposed to be a menu instead of an action."
Not according to Google's Material Design "spec", it isn't: "A floating action button represents the primary action in an application." (http://www.google.com/design/spec/components/buttons-floatin...)
Additional actions should go on the action bar.
Re: Google Design
#187"Maybe it's too complex of an idea" a very interesting / perhaps telling remark from one of the designers
Re: Google Design
#188Hmm. Material design is clicking twice on the play button to launch a Youtube video.
Lol, so true!
Re: Google Design
#189Wow 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 t…
It's not even design by committee, it's design by clique. It's the Project Runway of UI design. At least in the video, nobody is talking about metrics or testing or any practical consideration. In fact one of the designers says they "are used to working more practically. This is the first time where we're being pushed and told, 'don't worry about that'". Yes, don't worry about practicality... Another says it "is a wa…
> It's not even design by committee, it's design by clique. It's the Project Runway of UI design.
Well put; and possible even worse!
Re: Google Design
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either meaningless nonsense, or displays a complete ignorance of jazz. You pick.
No fixed / hard-coded information; everything reacts adapts, is fluid, interacts with other parts. Compared to how things were done in the past it seems improvised and free. Not far from jazz.
My objection is the conflation of [sloppy precise] with [improvised specified]. In reality they're more or less orthogonal qualities; Elvin Jones, for example, is about as close to a musical equivalent of "controlling every pixel" as I can imagine.