[tracker1]

I don't entirely agree... Material Design is pretty great imho and I like most of their UI choices (for applications that seem to sometimes get priority).

I think what this comes down to, is that their best technical minded developers are busy working on tooling, platforms, systems or other lower-level development. Their best design focused developers on public facing applications. This tends to leave the most junior of developers working on internally facing developer UIs. The payloads themselves are irresponsibly large on this application to say the least, and the ability/skill and understanding needed to make it better are probably not within the team(s) working on this UI to begin with.

Personally, I absolutely hate Angular and it's ironic that Angular's chosen primary UI toolkit @angular/material gets roughly half the downloads of the third party material-ui for react. Not even counting boostrap adapters.

Most web applications can easily be done in JS with an initial JS payload of ~500k-1mb (download size, compressed), with code splitting can have payloads for different areas/components come up as needed. Charts is probably the biggest beast that is practically impossible to tame, there have been a few times that I just generate the SVG directly in a React component to save the overhead of using a charting library, which is surprisingly easy to do.

[dmitriid]

Material UI is ... well. It just is. It's mediocre at best, and hilariously bad at worst:

- Insufficient contrast everywhere https://grumpy.website/post/0TEJkwzPA

- Inconsistent use of their own guidelines: https://grumpy.website/post/0Ra93yy33 (references the old design of the site, but the new one is just as bad)

- Bad physical metaphors: https://grumpy.website/post/0UnXYXhD9

- Or the hilarious story where they needed a user study involving 600 people to tell them that if a text field doesn't look like a text field, people won't be able to tell it's a text field: https://medium.com/google-design/the-evolution-of-material-d...

And that's just off the top of my head.

But all of that could be forgiven if Google bothered or cared. They don't.

[tracker1]

I know that some of the details above are worth calling out. In terms of usability, it's important and that is as much an implementation detail as it is a design guideline detail.

Regarding the buttons, I agree they should elevate on hover and press down... with the animation for the click radial effect. Touch interfaces with just the radial click indication.

For the survey/study, I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. Actually interviewing with people to determine what works best should be actively encouraged.

This also isn't to say that I think google proper really cares all that much. I'm pretty sure their UX designers are treated like second class citizens in their engineer focused culture, let alone those that cross between UI/UX and engineering.

I also want to differentiate between "Material Design" the guidelines and "Material UI" the react component library. It's probably the single best component library I've ever worked with, which isn't saying too much as it's not perfect, just better than anything else I've seen.

edit: the main point was that Google's blessed implementation for their UI design framework is less used than a third party implementation for another framework.