4 ms·

I don't entirely agree with other commenters saying it's uninspired. It is neutral, but many functional considerations go into making a UI framework, and neutra

by caseyy 1y ago

I don't entirely agree with other commenters saying it's uninspired. It is neutral, but many functional considerations go into making a UI framework, and neutrality serves an important purpose. However, given Material's popularity, I think it's inevitable that poorly designed/unergonomic apps will cheapen M3 a lot in the coming years. Same as it happened with Material 2. It used to be associated with clean, professionally developed apps; then it became associated with the worst of the worst and a lot of mediocre stuff, too. Sturgeon's Law is not kind to these things.

bsimpson 1y ago
When Matias was in charge of Material, he said the purpose of design guidance isn't to raise the peaks but to fill the valleys. An expert can come up with something that's more appealing/usable than slinging the components together, but someone without that expertise should be able to make something pretty compelling by following the practices set out by people who had it.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y ago
  It definitely has influenced how people build applications, and has improved the common language people use to refer to many patterns.
  - bsimpson 1y ago
    > became associated with the worst of the worst Material 2 may have felt corporate and boring, but I disagree with this accusation. Before Material, indie apps on Android were big grey buttons and unpadded text on a black background. Not everything that tries to use Material does a good job, but the starting point is better now than it used to be.
- caseyy 1y ago
  That's a good point. And it's a noble effort by the Google Design team. Unfortunately good will and good efforts are sometimes abused.