"Material Design"

>>57437809
>>>/3/

>>57437809
Don't like it? Don't use it. Keep your tweets in twitter and fuck off.

>>57437809
In five years.
Screencap this post.

>>57437823
>Don't like it? Don't use it
Kind of impossible when it seems every app developer fell for it

>>57437822
What does it have to do with 3D?

File: red_media_deep_regret.jpg (59KB, 640x550px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x550px

>>57437809
WOW ANON WHAT A GREAT THREAD.
GLAD YOU PUT FORTH THE EFFORT.
CAN REALLY TELL YOU WANTED TO ENGAGE IN DEEP DISCUSSION.
WOW.
THANKS ANON.
/G/ RELATED!
TECHNOLOGY DISCUSSION! WOAH

>>57437841
No problemo friend, it sure beats the usual consumer threads doesn't it?

>>57437841
>sperging this hard
show me ONE thread that has more than one sentence in the OP (protip you can't)

>>57437809
>Is this meme ever going to disappear?
Not if my boss has anything to say about it.

tfw: have to learn React and MDlite

Actually pretty comfy, my app is pretty slick now, it's nice making pretty things and not having to really think about the design side because much better designers have done it all for me.

Code to MDL spec, app turns out nice. I can live with this.

Wow it's almost like web design distinctive eras of design. Huh.

Wait awhile, the new web design trend is half a decade away.

>>57437859
>>57437849
>see lots of shit threads
>decide to improve the situation by making another shit thread
???

Material is pretty nice. I am interested to see what comes after it but I'm loving it so far.

>>57437809
>le material design is bad meme
When are you hipsters all going to disappear?

>>57437809
Every design trend disappears, eventually.
You can only hope it will die soon.

>>57437841
Don't capitalize the g you Neanderthal.

kek, the one time someone on /g/ talks about how awful material design is all the googlers come out of the woodwork:
>>57437823
>>57437841
>>57438619
>>57438646
Can't wait for it to be replaced 2bh, though I guess pajeet won't be too happy about needing to learn something new, as evidenced ITT

>>57437809
I like material design however I dislike the abuse of grey tones and diagonal symmetry.

>>57437841
>CAN REALLY TELL YOU WANTED TO ENGAGE IN DEEP DISCUSSION.
lol, where do you think you are?

Threads don't exactly need to be paragraphs long to be "good" you idiot, I've had good discussions in threads that don't even have a single word in the OP.

The only people(person?) that's actually ruining the discussion are the obvious google shills: >>57438726

I don't really like material design (though it certainly isn't intolerable), but I do believe that it has its advantages. >>57437863 sums it up pretty well in that it can make many design choices into a no-brainer for those who are not knowledgeable in the field, which undoubtedly salvages many projects that would otherwise be total shit. On the other hand, it makes one style the standard and causes it to infest everything with a non-optimal choice. Sure, better than the possible shitty default, but definitely not the best choice, either. It's especially jarring when Google deliberately uses it for their cross-platform apps.

Material design can be summed up in the same ways that most of Google's dabbling in design can be: good intentions and foundation but flawed execution that shows you that it's being done by engineers as opposed to designers.