5 ms·
Fluent Design System
- trevman 9y agoJust an FYI, click 'Build' in the upper right for actual information.
- plgs 9y agoLink to a channel 9 recording of yesterday's talk about Microsoft Fluent Design System: https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2017/B8066 https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2017/B8066 It has a bit more content than the landing page IMHO.
- nailer 9y agoAlso: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/ for examples and code.
- MichaelGG 9y agoThe calculator example for Acrylic[0] looks atrocious: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/images/acrylic_app-pattern_full.png https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/images/ac... What is that trying to convey? Large spaces with no division? Looks broken. 0: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/acrylic https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/acrylic
- ezekg 9y agoThat video was essentially useless seeing as the clips never lasted for more than a split second (maybe I'm just bad at focusing this morning?). Other than that, this looks pretty good. I really like the white/monochromatic stuff I've seen floating around on Twitter lately. (I'm a Mac guy that hasn't used Windows since 7.)
- have_faith 9y agoWhat is it exactly?
- devopsproject 9y agoIt uses ML and AI in the cloud to identify people who don't read the linked article before commenting. It is working brilliantly.
- jdormit 9y agoI read the article, and I still have no idea what "Fluent Design" actually entails.
- devopsproject 9y agoIt's literally the first sentence > An eloquent design system for a complex world It is a set of design guidelines described with flowery language.
- jdormit 9y agoRight, but what makes a design fluent? Are there guidelines? Other than using "light", "depth", etc.?
- devopsproject 9y agoflowery language The next time your read about a tech or new startup that uses really unnecessary words, come back and visit this thread
- have_faith 9y agoI had read it fully, I didn't come away understanding what it was exactly or how I go about using whatever it is though. I realise now that it's Microsofts answer to material design.
- agumonkey 9y agoMicrosoft upgaming Google Material Design
- sonar_un 9y agoThe video wasn't very good at explaining the system, and the website itself didn't even use the same effects that were used. For instance, there was heavy use of parallax scrolling in the video, but the website didn't have it at all. Seems like a missed opportunity.
- nxc18 9y agoThey don't say it at all, but perhaps the biggest change here is that they're making headings big and bold now. For quite a few years, Apple, Microsoft, and Google (even pre-material) all seemed to be competing on thinnest, smallest, ultralight-est headings. edit: I stand corrected. Their marketing site and all their videos are (apparently) inconsistent with their guidelines: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/typography https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/style/typograph...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- irq-1 9y agoWith Firefox on Xubuntu the site is unusable -- zooming down to 30% you can see most, but not all, of the text. Maybe it's my system, but Microsoft doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
- ScalaNovice 9y agoSays the guy using Xubuntu lol. (and I'm on Fx + Arch myself) I say this because you don't even know that Xubuntu has nothing to do with Fx, it's all gtk. So you're not qualified to comment. Yet, it's all MS's fault.
- slight 9y agoXubuntu is a distribution not a desktop. Distributions have all sorts of settings that affect GTK and Gecko.
- rootlocus 9y agoXubuntu has nothing to do with Fx, it's all gtk Actually, gtk doesn't really have much to do with firefox either. The Gecko rendering engine is ui agnostic.
- aleksandrm 9y agoWatch out, we have a bad ass over here.
- DocSavage 9y agoIt's broken with my up-to-date Chrome on MacOS. I could see the site properly with Firefox Aurora. Aside from the sketchy web page, though, the site is very vague. Yeah, I see there are elements to design but what is the "Fluent Design System" and how does it champion the use of those elements?
- agumonkey 9y agoI like it enough to be curious. It's still a bit fluffy (scale wasn't clear). Still something there.
- anentropic 9y agoLens flares on everything! To the future!
- stupidcar 9y agoI think the trend towards more animation is fine on a micro-scale – buttons and so forth — but I predict there will eventually be a big backlash against these huge, complex parallax transformations. They are just too exhausting to watch.
- DrD4nger 9y agoAgreed, but I imagine that the parallax/animation aspect will be used sparingly, or very discretely, and only within a few applications. I would be towards the shading, transparency, and having the content cut off flush to the bottom of the window being the most common use of their fluent design principles. I will be very upset/nauseous if they overuse the parallax effect. The settings will need an off switch.
- romaniv 9y agoInterface design is very, very important at this stage of evolution of computing, and I am disappointed in the overall direction taken by the industry in this regard. What we (desperately) need is work similar to the one that was done by Douglas Engelbart and still done by people like Alan Kay and Bret Victor. Instead we get things like Bootstrap, Metro, Material Design and now Fluent. (I am aware they are very different in scope, but their overall influence on real applications is quite similar: establishing certain wide-spread normative patterns.) Shallow and reactive things. They don't invent and define new ways of UI interactions and information presentation (examples from the past: clipping window, icon, hyperlink) and concentrate mostly on how things look. You might counter that this is the domain of MIT Media Lab rather than Microsoft and Google, but at this stage new UI concepts have to be adopted by entities with significant influence to be adopted at all.
- whowouldathunk 9y agoFluent targets AR/VR too. Seems like it qualifies as inventive.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoI agree. To me the three most powerful pieces of software on a computer are a function, a string, and an array. You can do almost anything with these three applications, but the UIs for them is still utterly atrocious. Whoever designs the first easy-to-use version of this trip will unlock a massive amount of creative potential.
- oblio 9y agoIt probably wouldn't register on your radar for "creativity" but the first killer app for PCs was an application of the "list" or "table": spreadsheets (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2012/01/06/how-trello-is-different/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2012/01/06/how-trello-is-diff...). The spreadsheet was a major move forward for unlocking creative potential. A part of that probably brought us the financial crysis of 2007-2008, but nobody can complain that it wasn't creative :p
- whowouldathunk 9y agoFor now it's a few things that are available out of the box for XAML apps that target the Fall Creators Update SDK: 1. "Acrylic". It's the blur/color-blend/noise effect that you can see on the Edge tab bar or top of Photos app in the Fall Creators Update. 2. Mouse over lighting effects. You can see that briefly in the video when the mouse over a ListView and tiles. 3. Lots of small animations 4. "Depth", meaning 3D transforms and shadows used for emphasis
- sctb 9y agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317171
- marsrover 9y agoIf you're on the fast track for Windows 10 insider builds, you can see a preview of this by opening your calculator. I expect you'll be thoroughly disappointed.
- m_fayer 9y agoUgh. This looks like MS trying to one-up Material Design (itself already on the rich side), and in so doing I think they've gone a step too far. It does look good, in a sci-fi movie UI kind of way. But it would be a nightmare if many of the apps I use day to day started to look this way. All the animation, depth, texture - it's too attention grabbing, self conscious, and annoyingly, deeply, branded. Software is not supposed to be a high-design object, taste is very individual and any object with so much aesthetic weight imposes on our consciousness. While highly designed things can bring us a lot of pleasure, we should be free to judiciously choose them for ourselves. Many pieces of software are non-negotiable high-use tools. They should be, first and foremost, highly usable - and if there's an insistence on imposing an aesthetic experience on the user, it should be acknowledged that the user likely has no choice but to use the software, and may be temperamentally or socioeconomically unlikely to appreciate the aesthetic experience being thrust upon them. (I wonder what my 75 year old Russian mom would make of all the depth effects, Windows 10 already confuses her and hurts her eyes.) So if we're going to insist on infusing our software with some particular design aesthetic, it should at the very least be light, minimal, and easy to ignore for those who aren't interested and just need to get their work done.