1. I highly dislike material design as a programmer and as a consumer.
2. Google and others using “Material Design”, Polymer, etc is really annoying and can be confusing until the context is clear. It makes searching about EITHER physical material design or coding material design a painful experience.
I was searching for job openings around the SF Bay Area and the fact that they’ve made stuff like this and “product design engineer” very hard to filter through between hardware and software is just nonsense.
There’s a reason we define specific words and terms for specific fields and it’s totally understandable that different fields would accidentally mess this up before we had the internet and global connectivity. However, now we have no excuse to not make things clear and distinct. When I say “Polymer” you should thing “long noodly chain of repeating units, aka many mers” not “a web component library.”
When I search for “materials design/er” I should NOT see something programming related unless it’s computational materials design software (simulation, analysis, etc).
Still, barring the complete confusion created by this stuff, I don’t like Materials Design. It’s ugly and needs to go away. Amp can do that too. We need to keep Amp about current.
> When I say “Polymer” you should thing “long noodly chain of repeating units, aka many mers” not “a web component library.”
I'm sort of with you on some of your complaints (e.g. job titles), but this one doesn't stand. Do you want to ensure when we talk about amazon that we're talking about a river? That when we talk about googol we're talking about 10^100? Words are frequently reappropriated for company and product names, and that's fine.
TBH yes. I wish search engines had an "exclude branding" modifier to search terms. Too many products appropriate too many terms from other domains these days.
It isn't a good or a bad thing, it's just another design system, where you have some rules. We didn't like Material Design either, that's why we took it and made it more user-friendly. The basic idea is that you can take this UI Kit and start playing with some variables to change colors/shadows/typography and create something new, but you don't have to create the whole system from 0. It will save you a lot of time.
Sure, but a framework won't help if the output looks bad because the design system is just horrible UI/UX wise.
But great effort, apparently you are not wrong, since Material Design is so wide spread nowadays. But it's just _my_ personal opinion that the "design system" looks absolutely hideous.
I also find Material Design abhorrent. I've read the specs and feel that I understand and agree with Google's motivations for creating such a system, but the result is just plain ugly to me. Material Design has become the "Bootstrap 3" of this generation of websites/webapps, spreading like a virus in part because it's a simple, prepackaged way to quickly add a professional looking design framework to a site. But already now when I come across a Material Design-themed website I feel it's a bit dated, so "2015". Having said all that, I've used a couple Creative Tim bootstrap themes in the past and really liked them, so even if you don't like Material I suggest you look at their other offerings. No financial relationship.
I was looking at UI toolkits recently for a new side project and I consciously avoided Material Design because of the Google connection and also because I don't really think it looks that good.
Went with Grommet - perhaps for no good reason, but that's the joy of side projects.... (and liking it so far).
1. I highly dislike material design as a programmer and as a consumer.
2. Google and others using “Material Design”, Polymer, etc is really annoying and can be confusing until the context is clear. It makes searching about EITHER physical material design or coding material design a painful experience.
I was searching for job openings around the SF Bay Area and the fact that they’ve made stuff like this and “product design engineer” very hard to filter through between hardware and software is just nonsense.
There’s a reason we define specific words and terms for specific fields and it’s totally understandable that different fields would accidentally mess this up before we had the internet and global connectivity. However, now we have no excuse to not make things clear and distinct. When I say “Polymer” you should thing “long noodly chain of repeating units, aka many mers” not “a web component library.”
When I search for “materials design/er” I should NOT see something programming related unless it’s computational materials design software (simulation, analysis, etc).
Still, barring the complete confusion created by this stuff, I don’t like Materials Design. It’s ugly and needs to go away. Amp can do that too. We need to keep Amp about current.