[uzero]

To me Material has always felt like it was designed by an algorithm. There's just no trace of any "soul", playfulness or overall "artistry". I know this isn't true and there's many talented artists and designers working in Google but that's just the way I've perceived everything done with Material so far. It doesn't feel like fun, it feels like something that just had to be done to stay with the times.

Another issue is Material's animations. I literally cringe every time I have to use Google Translate on my phone. I can't imagine how annoying it would be to have full OS on your phone done with Material. Those whole element animations are so distracting and they actually make the app feel slower. I know iOS has also a lot of animation but the difference is where it is being applied. Material design applies it to interactions with elements while iOS applies it to transitions. If I have to wait and see how the element I just interacted with animates, it seems unimportant but if animation is used to mask loading time like for example when transferring between app and homescreen on iOS, then it feels natural. If you want to animate interaction elements, it needs to be really, really fast animation just to let you know that yes, I got your tap/click.

[nobleach]

Were there studies done to show that material design was "the way"? Or for that matter, was there any research done proving that it would be more useful at all? The designers at my company tout it as "the right way". I'm trying to be accommodating, but I'm starting to suspect that this is just one company's word over another's.

[uzero]

Oh I'm sure there's plenty of studies that were used to design Material and that's probably exactly why it feels like it was designed by an algorithm. Like the article says that it's very comprehensive guide/framework to get a cohesive result but that doesn't mean it has the magical "it" what makes design truly remarkable. One reason I think that might be factor is that Google has never been innovator when it comes to user experience. They're more about iteration and testing. The problem is that it leads to local maxima and rarely something unique and something that takes the whole industry forward.

But also keep in mind that designing a framework that works for small screens and big screens is truly a hard task. Microsoft tried and failed with "Metro" and now Google is trying to pull it off. In my opinion Apple has been a bit smarter about this and kept iOS and OSX mainly separate while integrating some elements here and there.

[dsugarman]

Material allows for super complex applications to be consistent and easy to use. It is not "artsy" it's functional in a way that is better than anything else right now.

[uzero]

This is one of those things that I think we just have to agree to disagree. I've to (unfortunately) use Google's webapps in some of my client projects and they're a mess from user experience point of view. Personally I have an iPhone and I'm an Apple user but I make a conscious effort to look for good ideas from where ever they might come so I've made a habit to try latest Android where ever I can. That being said, I'm sorry to say but honestly, I think it's far from intuitive and for me Android has never felt consistent - even Google's own apps are breaking conventions constantly. I realize that this might be because I haven't used Android regularly over long period of time but for me if UX takes time to get used to, it's crap.

[jrochkind1]

The OP would suggest not by an algorithm, but by a committee.