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

Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

#51

Post by philliphaydon »

philtar wrote: post #49

I'm genuinely curious: This looks very lame. Why are the commenters excited? Not trying to offend I'm mean lame as pragmatically as possible.

I was thinking the same. I initially thought based on the name I could pick a single component to use but its an entire framework, so it still suffers from bloat.

Re: Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

#53

Post by Akkuma »

addy_osmani wrote: post #37
dstaley wrote: post #24

So, I just wanna say I am absolutely, incredibly excited for this. I've loved the design of paper-elements, but I don't want to attempt integrating Polymer into my projects. That being said, the use of BEM is a huge turn off. The markup for a simple card uses seventeen different classes, which is absolutely a nightmare to memorize. For comparison, a card from Materialize uses only five to seven classes (depending on…

Thanks for the feedback. We used BEM as we find it helps with the long-term maintainability of CSS/SASS codebases (there's also copy/paste support on all of our snippets). That said, if you find the use of BEM a turn-off, we welcome folks just taking our styles and adapting them to the naming scheme that makes most sense for them. Anything that helps.

I was overall impressed with what I saw, but when I saw the amount of classes required to achieve a simple button my jaw hit the ground at the level of commitment to BEM that bordered on what I'd consider absurd. To be fair, one could create their own snippets in an editor or in the case of React their own components to remove the need for all the boilerplate.

Now, a simple question is why would I want to use this over materializecss.com? I saw this from the FAQ:

>That said, the large, diverse number of implementations available are often quite liberal with their interpretation of the spec (not their fault!) and their opinions don’t always reflect what the Material Design team would consider ‘correct’.

It doesn't specifically point out what these guys are doing wrong and I personally can't see much that is being done differently. Are there any specific examples you can point me toward?

Why make a completely new project rather than working with the communities out there? If the spec is too liberal it should be updated and issues posted under these projects, so these projects can properly follow the spec, unless they specifically choose to deviate from it.

Re: Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

#55

Post by tiglionabbit »

spankalee wrote: post #39
dstaley wrote: post #24

So, I just wanna say I am absolutely, incredibly excited for this. I've loved the design of paper-elements, but I don't want to attempt integrating Polymer into my projects. That being said, the use of BEM is a huge turn off. The markup for a simple card uses seventeen different classes, which is absolutely a nightmare to memorize. For comparison, a card from Materialize uses only five to seven classes (depending on…

I'm curious, what's keeping you from trying Polymer? Its paper-elements are a very good implementation of Material Design, and the library is very light weight.

I was considering using Polymer. It worked great in Chrome. Then I tried using it in Firefox. It took a whole extra 1 second longer for Polymer to bootstrap itself on every page load, even when all assets were cached.

The blog post mentions speedups in Chrome and Safari. It does not mention Firefox.

Re: Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

#59

Post by Saturnaut »

qwreasdfkjhiouy wrote: post #14

I have to say, I really dislike the appearance of material design.

I think we need to be careful of treating Material as an all encompassing solution. A lot of UI / UX folks I know are full on embracing it without taking a step back and seriously evaluating what problems it will and won't solve. I'm not saying I dislike it, I just think that there are different solutions for different situations. There is no silver bullet in our industry.

Re: Material Design Lite Components in HTML/CSS/JS

#60

Post by zvrba »

qwreasdfkjhiouy wrote: post #14

I have to say, I really dislike the appearance of material design.

I dislike the abundance of color schemes with low saturation. This lower contrast, and I can imagine I'd have to turn up screen backlight to the max if I used it in sunlight.

I tried to use colleague's android and I found it unintuitive to use too (it wasn't obvious what elements you can interact with, and animations were annoying).

(I'm a WP user and it's THE UI I like best.)

Post reply on HN