3 ms·

Isn't it kinda ridiculous to believe your design should be the universal design for all apps? Their motivation makes it even worse in my opinion. It's somethin

by capote 10y ago

Isn't it kinda ridiculous to believe your design should be the universal design for all apps? Their motivation makes it even worse in my opinion. It's something they should know, and we all know, will never happen. That's why the article sees it this way, and I agree.

ollerac 10y ago
Google wants to automate the design process as much as possible. They have so many products that if they want to achieve any kind of consistent branding in their interfaces, they have to do this. They've probably gone to far. I have, more than once, logged into a Google product I haven't used before and been confused about which product it was because it looked so similar to 3 other products. Their efforts to automate whatever is possible to automate is laudable, however, and I think they've pushed the field of interaction design further than just about any other web company in the past decade.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  The company who for close to a decade was criticized soundly and was the butt of many jokes for their terrible design capabilities has now "pushed the field of interaction design further than just about any other web company"? You're right that Material Design, like the iOS "flat" design, is meant to automate or simplify the design process, but the reason is simply because they want to make more money. If your standards are such that you need to hire a real graphic designer to meet them, then it's more expensive to design an app, therefore there are less apps in your store, therefore you make less money running an app store. Material Design, and iOS flat design for that matter, have done virtually nothing with respect to pushing design forward other than lower the bar so that it's cheaper and easier for a non-designer to adhere to those standards.

3 ms·

Isn't it kinda ridiculous to believe your design should be the universal design for all apps? Their motivation makes it even worse in my opinion. It's somethin

by capote 10y ago

ollerac 10y ago
Google wants to automate the design process as much as possible. They have so many products that if they want to achieve any kind of consistent branding in their interfaces, they have to do this. They've probably gone to far. I have, more than once, logged into a Google product I haven't used before and been confused about which product it was because it looked so similar to 3 other products. Their efforts to automate whatever is possible to automate is laudable, however, and I think they've pushed the field of interaction design further than just about any other web company in the past decade.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  The company who for close to a decade was criticized soundly and was the butt of many jokes for their terrible design capabilities has now "pushed the field of interaction design further than just about any other web company"? You're right that Material Design, like the iOS "flat" design, is meant to automate or simplify the design process, but the reason is simply because they want to make more money. If your standards are such that you need to hire a real graphic designer to meet them, then it's more expensive to design an app, therefore there are less apps in your store, therefore you make less money running an app store. Material Design, and iOS flat design for that matter, have done virtually nothing with respect to pushing design forward other than lower the bar so that it's cheaper and easier for a non-designer to adhere to those standards.