opinions on material design? it's it a meme?

It's the thing to use on android. It's pretty solid. Not sure if there's really anything more to say about it.

Many other products and ads take inspiration from it as well recently, so it definitely appeals to people to some degree. No need to use it if it doesn't fit your use-case or if you don't like it, though.

File: IMG_20160310_104601.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>261604
How is it different from flat design?

File: 1416361860044.gif (188KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 800x600px

>>261649
It include mouvement and shapes morphing.
Material design use simple graphics that react to the user.
>What is google?

>>261649
MD is not flat, it's just flat-ish.

>>261547
What do you guys think will be a follow up to all these flat, minimalistic, material designs? I can't believe that things will turn to a richer, 3D looks, I just can't see it, at least not in the near future. Tbh I kinda am getting sick of all this, even though I can still find a joy in it.

>>261803 well if we knew that, anon...

>>261803
If flared jeans can come back, skeuomorphism can come back.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-21-17-18-47.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

>>261547
i think its fucking shite desu

but seriously, there are zero affordances. Pic related. there is no highlighting, no borders. there is no indication of what area is still pressable (within a section) and what isn't. Nothing indicates what it actually does. it's bad UX. Sure, plenty of people can get along with it, but is a vertical column of three seperated dots really the indicative of
>HERES A MENU WITH THOSE SETTINGS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?
I thought the whole grand idea of design was "dont make me think" and a single interpretation across all people.
Then again, maybe it's just a matter of conditioning until even your dog can into flat1.5.

>>262509
>but is a vertical column of three seperated dots really the indicative of HERES A MENU WITH THOSE SETTINGS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?
Sorry, but you'll never find an all-purpose "miscellaneous" icon. The drawer contains more than just settings, so a gear icon won't work.

>>262537
Why not a label though? something as simple as "menu" would be more clear while being short enough to not cause issues with string length or sizing and such.

>>263032
What do you do for foreign languages, especially if the word for "menu" is retardedly long? If you shorten the word you run into the same problem of it possibly becoming unrecognizable, and if you modify the design to accommodate more characters it's going to look super unprofessional to anyone who goes back and forth between different versions.

>>263036
this is why we should all learn chinese

>>261547

it's a meme if it's unscalable

>>263036
>What do you do for foreign languages?
I'm currently working on an application that is single-language(Dutch), has no need to be translated in the near future, and the user group is a bit older. Since it's single-language(translation wouldn't be a problem due to similarity), and most words are short enough to use, i'm kinda on the fence on not just using labels. Of course, basic stuff like 'x' to close and '<' to go back would probably be okay, but i'm trying to keep it as straight-forward as possible.
I think by using labels you optimize it for usability and language at cost of portability.
Would this be one of those edgecases where it has no real benefit to use icons? I don't really see a reason to use them other than having more screen-estate.

>especially if the word for "menu" is retardedly long? If you shorten the word you run into the same problem of it possibly becoming unrecognizable
e.g. "Menu" translates to "Menu", and "Miscellaneous" translates to "Overige", so that's pretty neat, but it's a good point, thanks.

Material and flat memes have destroyed UI learnability, consistency and usability.

File: doctormo_Menu_Key.png (19KB, 800x724px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 800x724px

By the way, here's your universal menu icon. I'm so tired of the hamburger button. I'm tired of every element looking the same, too. Every button looks like a link, every link looks like babby's first styled div, every other widget type looks like every other widget type.

>>263618
What a terrible icon

I really like it. It feels like a happy medium between the harsh shiny rendering of Web 2.0 and the flat design so popular today.

Then again, I was pretty okay with Metro too, so who knows, maybe I just have shit taste.

>>263618
Ugly, no balance, details won't scale.

>>263618
something like this would look good without that cursor

>>263618

pls go, and uninstall adobe

Looking at material design makes me physically sick, because it fucking sucks.

Is it just me or did 4chan just get material design applied to all the boards? Looks good, but it's got way too much padding imo

>>264144
Just realised it must be an april fools thing

>>263617
I personally think flat designs are tolerable if done right. However material design takes the worst aspects or rather, most common 'mistakes' of flat design and then takes away the essence of it by coupling it with shadows and layering. It undoes the entire purpose of flat design.

>>264144

It's surprisingly tolerable but there is WAY too much wasted space between posts
Plus the circle masking of images is dumb

imo the problem with google's material design is it's pushed as the "be all end all" of app design. not to sound overly-elitist, but not everyone is a designer. give them the tools, and sure, they can make an app, incorporate material design, and still make it look like absolute shit. you can see how hopeless it is to force people to be ui/ux designers when you go on the app store and find out the ugliest apps use material design, and the best designed apps don't use it at all, or simply follow it loosely.

>>264145
April fools only lasts until midday, anything afterwards is just retarted.

>>262509

Google often workshops design changes via Amazon Mechanical Turk. One test showed a Google Maps screenshot just like yours, and asked people to select which regions they thought were clickable. I selected every single object on the screen, because that is my experience with Google Maps. It's gotten less and less intuitive to use.

Also, anyone else feeling vaguely suffocated by 4chan's new design?

File: it is now.png (61KB, 585x233px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 585x233px

>>261547
>is it a meme?

>>262509
>there are zero affordances.

Affordances are a shitty meme. People learn UIs just as quickly without visual crutches.

>>264147
Just because there exists a philosophy that, if taken to the extreme, says you should not have shadows or layering, does not mean that it's forbidden or wrong to use. You can do whatever you want; as long as the result is good.

IMO the reason MD uses layering and shadows is because fully "flat" design is shit and looks unnatural and sterile. While I have other issues with MD, I think it is better off for it.

>>264228
>Just because there exists a philosophy that, if taken to the extreme, says you should not have shadows or layering, does not mean that it's forbidden or wrong to use. You can do whatever you want; as long as the result is good.
Why do you think I'm a big fan of ultraflat?


>IMO the reason MD uses layering and shadows is because fully "flat" design is shit and looks unnatural and sterile.
This is the first time I've heard someone disapproving flat design because of aesthetics rather than usability and even worse, I'm beginning to think google shares your sentiments.
Drop shadows are present on floating action buttons and cards yet menus have nothing except text and whitespace. Google seems to be using drop shadows for skeuomorphism just for the sake of it and adding them wherever they feel like rather than to indicate clickability or content boundaries or serve some definite purpose. And the lack of clickability and content boundaries is the single biggest gripe I have with MD, aside from the overdone animations.

I'll explain my previous post: I didn't say I hate shadows, but when it's using drop shadows as well as mimicking real life "material" i.e. paper it's attempting to compromise between skeuomorphism and ultraflat and doing a shitty job at and missing the point of both.

>>264217
>>264217
>>264217
>>264217
>>264217
Fucking this. There seems to be a disconnect between what designers scream is "clickable" or "unclickable" and what regular users actually think. If you look at how any normal person uses minimal design, they're not very confused at all.

What we're seeing here is a bunch of kids who studied graphic design recently, and pretty much only know how to use graphic design, and are terrified that they might have to do something other than color in some monochromatic boxes.

>>264255
>>264217
At the end of the day, it still slows people down.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design-long-exposure/

>>264255
>Fucking this. There seems to be a disconnect between what designers scream is "clickable" or "unclickable" and what regular users actually think.
>what is user testing i mean seriously designers and their baseless accusations what the fuck

If you look at how any normal person uses minimal design, they're not very confused at all.
Designers are aware of conditioning but they want to keep the learning curve as low as possible. That's something different than just being ignorant of it.

>>264260
Interesting research, thanks

Personally, I think that completely flat design is just another example of minimalism without brains. In attempt to make things look fresh it just takes away from the user experience.

Duarte once spoke about some "reptilian reflexes", that when something has a shadow, people allegedly intuitively perceive it as an object they can touch or interact otherwise with. While I don't have any evidence for or against this, I agree with one thing: shadows and highlights really are perceived very deeply by human mind.

Personally, I've noticed that interfaces with shadows feel more intuitive to me than completely flat ones (Windows 10). Of course it's not a complete deal breaker, but I'd rather have shadows and other stuff in my interface. It's not skeuomorphism—it's basic human perception.

>>264244
ultraflat never had any kind of point to begin with. Okay, maybe there is some aesthetic point to it, but barely. So basically anything that changes it makes it better, in my book. Layering and shadows certainly do.

>>264435
Also, shadows and layering have IMO little to do with skeuo and more with creating elements that are simply visually distinguished. With flatter user-interfaces, everything sort-of merges into one thing, and it becomes IMO more difficult to distinguish e.g. interactible UI elements and simple style-elements, grouping elements, ...

>>264436
Are you purposely being daft? I didn't say material design is bad because put shadows into flat design, I'm saying the shadows in MD feels aimless and arbitrary.

>>264435
>shadows and layering have IMO little to do with skeuo
MD explicitly states they're trying to mimic paper you fucking asshat

>>264255
Correction here, I mistyped. It should be
>pretty much only know how to use flat design
not
>pretty much only know how to use graphic design

>>264444
checked

File: holo.jpg (71KB, 654x1162px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 654x1162px

>>261547

Garbage.

FAB takes way too much space, obfuscates actual content and usually its functions could be moved to the nav bar. Speaking of nav bar, it's unnecessarily thinck and holds way too less information/buttons.

Also while there's padding everywhere, wasted with white space, the actual interactive area of popup buttons (yes/no/cancel) is unnecessary small.

Holo was probably the better UI of the current generation of smartphone OSes. Looked better, more compact yet easier to intercact with, more eye friendly too, not unnecessary plain blinding white, geerally more consistent and simply a better, more mature design.

p

>>264433

Interesting, I could roll with that. Oh, and this whole thread has been a learning experience, thanks guys