Material Design wins in my view. The Apple Design is getting worse and less usable. I had to turn on several Accessibility features to use it. The colors are terribly gaudy and painful to see.
Jony Ive definitely failed as a software designer. He should have just stayed with hardware design and we should have had a qualified software UX designer.
Google did exceptionally well with its Material Design and I don't give a damn WHAT you think or what you think is "best." I know many of you protested about Apple's iOS horrible UX and now you're all defending it. You know Apple got it wrong. And it still is wrong.
Please, just stop. Apple got iOS design RIGHT, despite early adopters not liking it. I could never go back to iOS 6, and Material Design looks like it was designed by the same underage idiots that made Metro for Winbloze 8.
Please, just stop. Apple got iOS design RIGHT, despite early adopters not liking it. I could never go back to iOS 6, and Material Design looks like it was designed by the same underage idiots that made Metro for Winbloze 8.
Why don't you get a android phone and get off this site android material design is nothing special it just adds more confusion when you see apps made for touch wiz. Google should be using the iOS 7 design not there hideous own one
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
Except those products ARE designed to match OS X or Windows. Your excuse is wrong. You don't want a Mac user to get a program that doesn't operate like a Mac program. Likewise, little Google needs to follow iOS design conventions. Apple needs to lay down the law here.
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
Except those products ARE designed to match OS X or Windows. Your excuse is wrong. You don't want a Mac user to get a program that doesn't operate like a Mac program. Likewise, little Google needs to follow iOS design conventions. Apple needs to lay down the law here.
Lightroom on my PC looks and behaves nothing like a Microsoft product. It's an Adobe experience, and it looks almost identical on OSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
While it's certainly the traditional direction, why should the OS dictate UX direction? As we move more to single-page apps and cross-platform products, a software company can make a nice common environment for its users by unifying the application experience, and completely disregarding the OS. It's a different paradigm, but it's neither right or wrong. I prefer it.
FWIW, I spent about a minute writing the previous post.
Problem with Flash is that it's a bit outdated now and there are more efficient ways of doings a lot of things that it does, and (more importantly) it's used as the format of choice for so much crappy ad spam. I liked not having to put up with that with Safari as my main browser, but I don't get that same luxury with Chrome, without installing extensions, which I don't want to do. Meh, swings and roundabouts, at least Chrome isn't eating my memory like Safari does.
I disagree. Material is a well thought out paradigm, and it looks nice in all the apps that have adopted it. Moreso than the iOS7+ aesthetic in some cases; it's still pretty clear that buttons are buttons.
I also don't think it's much of a copy of either Microsoft and/or Apple. From the most superficial angle, yes, it's "flat" and eschews gradients and lighting effects, but it's much more than that, it's a whole design framework. And it's good.
Also, I wouldn't say Flash is trash. Hell, I wouldn't even have Chrome installed if I thought that, as it existed as my "browser for when I need to use something that uses Flash". Problem with Flash is that it's a bit outdated now and there are more efficient ways of doings a lot of things that it does, and (more importantly) it's used as the format of choice for so much crappy ad spam. I liked not having to put up with that with Safari as my main browser, but I don't get that same luxury with Chrome, without installing extensions, which I don't want to do. Meh, swings and roundabouts, at least Chrome isn't eating my memory like Safari does.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
Lightroom on my PC looks and behaves nothing like a Microsoft product. It's an Adobe experience, and it looks almost identical on OSX.
While it's certainly the traditional direction, why should the OS dictate UX direction? As we move more to single-page apps and cross-platform products, a software company can make a nice common environment for its users by unifying the application experience, and completely disregarding the OS. It's a different paradigm, but it's neither right or wrong. I prefer it.
FWIW, I spent about a minute writing the previous post.
Again i disagree. Light room pretty much fuctions the same on the Mac as it does on windows. Material design is a reference for how Google wants all apps to look for its OS just like what Apple has done with iOS 7 flat design. But not only does material design look out of place on iOS it doesn't even use the same gestures. its Google thinking they can fish iOS users over to there platform to gather data for ads more easily. And it seems like it's worked on you
Bite your tongue!!! I'd dump Apple if they EVER went to this abomination!
Why, it's a nice look. Personally I think it looks nicer than iOS but again iOS has been around for a long while now and probably should go through a makeover.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
I get about the same memory usage with FireFox than I do with Chrome, Midori has the lowest memory footprint for me, I don't use Safari because it's only available for Apple gear. Extensions are a big reason as to why people are having memory problems. I just use AdBlock and the add to Google Drive or read later function and I have zero problems.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
I prefer the way Chrome works, Firefox just seems like old hat now. Resource usage isn't my priority, I'd just like something that doesn't eat memory by the gigabyte, which is what Safari often seems to do on my machine.
No idea, but Safari with some frequency takes up multiple gigs of memory, and I only have 8GB on my MBA, so it's quite a hit. I do often have lots of browser windows open, with video and other rich media in them, but even so, Chrome seems to deal with that same situation a lot better than Safari does. As I say, may well be to do with my set up and use cases, but Chrome's performance seems to suit me better.
I also don't have either ClickToFlash or AdBlock on either, as I don't install any extensions as a rule.
Gotta say, that's a rather silly*** rule you have there. May I ask, "why"?
*** I love extensions for all of my browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome)... if they do as they say and add to my productivity getting through about 35 websites per day of necessary information, cataloging it all (Feedly, Evernote, Pocket, Dropbox), managing sometimes up to 5 windows with 50+ tabs open. Click-to-Flash, AdBlock, and Ghostery all add up to a major performance increase, and I dare say not even half of what I do would be possible without those extensions stopping unnecessary bandwidth usage or memory chokes. Then we can talk about the great developer tools extensions.
Lightroom on my PC looks and behaves nothing like a Microsoft product. It's an Adobe experience, and it looks almost identical on OSX.
While it's certainly the traditional direction, why should the OS dictate UX direction? As we move more to single-page apps and cross-platform products, a software company can make a nice common environment for its users by unifying the application experience, and completely disregarding the OS. It's a different paradigm, but it's neither right or wrong. I prefer it.
FWIW, I spent about a minute writing the previous post.
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
Thanks for pointing out how Adobe codes to the lowest common denominator, can't truly innovate any longer and codes "hack jobs" like mobile Lightroom so that it can be ported to Android easier...and foists that low-end experience on those of us that value professional OSes and equipment... starting with the abomination of their pathetic installers.
Yup. You hit the nail on the head why we can't have anything nice or forward thinking from Adobe regarding professional creative software. Thank Microsoft, which is even worse and not worth going into details.
Note: there's an interesting thread on the Adobe Photoshop forums, with requests to port PS to Linux. A lot of entertainment studios have workflows and pipelines created with specialized software running on Linux. I've stated there that if Adobe wanted to, they probably could easily port PS to Linux using a lot of the OSX code. Naturally, that is if Adobe still wasn't coding for Windows first rather than Apple, where they received their early successes...as well as reality checks pointed out to them (eminent FlashTrash™ death because power efficiency was someone's "dream weaver")... lest we forget. :rolleyes:
I also don't think it's much of a copy of either Microsoft and/or Apple. From the most superficial angle, yes, it's "flat" and eschews gradients and lighting effects, but it's much more than that, it's a whole design framework. And it's good.
It's a copy from Microsoft in the sense that they did something very different to what Android and iOS were doing and the later 2 have since gone in the same direction. From comparing the guidelines from Material and Modern, Material obeys all the guidelines for Modern so in that way it's also a copy. Where it differs heavily though is Modern is very flexible with what you can do. It suggest very loose ideas about white space, importance of fonts, less chrome etc. But Material actually goes as far as to suggest spacing sizes, layouts, colours etc.
Obviously Windows Phone included apps that were following the Modern design, but you only have to compare the Bing/MSN apps with something like the start screen or messaging hub to see there's wild differences in what you can produce while following the design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
I think every app should have it's own brand and feel, but still follow an OS's guidelines. The problem comes when the guidelines dictate to much. e.g. An app should have it's own colour pallet, button design, font's etc. But things like the positioning of a back button or gestures should be consistent. Apps should then be able to look similar cross platform but still offer a platforms features.
If you have the most popular device/os in each category you'd have a Windows laptop, an Android phone and an Apple tablet. If you have an app from a company not related to any of these but is on each device, you'd want a consistent experience across devices.
Gotta say, that's a rather silly*** rule you have there. May I ask, "why"?
Bit rude to describe something as silly before asking why, but ok.
I don't install extensions because broadly speaking and in my experience they slow down the browser and interfere with web browsing in ways that are sometimes unpredictable. I also don't necessarily trust extensions the way I trust my browser. Lots of personal and financial details pass through my browser, so having extensions which may be able to intercept that makes me uneasy. I prefer to not take that risk.
Re: Ad blockers, If a website earns its money through ad revenue then it should be able to show me ads when I visit the website. It is then my choice to not visit that website because of the ads. I don't like the idea of scamming content out of websites without allowing them their business model.
Re; ClickToFlash, my understanding is that if I use Safari without Flash installed (as is my preference, despite my resource issues) then the server will be notified than the ad or video or whatever has failed to serve. With ClickToFlash they get no such message, so ads are reported as seen. I think that's both dishonest and not particularly helpful to anyone.
You're welcome to disagree, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the thread, so if that's the case let's just agree to disagree.
Bit rude to describe something as silly before asking why, but ok.
I don't install extensions because broadly speaking and in my experience they slow down the browser and interfere with web browsing in ways that are sometimes unpredictable. I also don't necessarily trust extensions the way I trust my browser. Lots of personal and financial details pass through my browser, so having extensions which may be able to intercept that makes me uneasy. I prefer to not take that risk.
Re: Ad blockers, If a website earns its money through ad revenue then it should be able to show me ads when I visit the website. It is then my choice to not visit that website because of the ads. I don't like the idea of scamming content out of websites without allowing them their business model.
Re; ClickToFlash, my understanding is that if I use Safari without Flash installed (as is my preference, despite my resource issues) then the server will be notified than the ad or video or whatever has failed to serve. With ClickToFlash they get no such message, so ads are reported as seen. I think that's both dishonest and not particularly helpful to anyone.
You're welcome to disagree, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the thread, so if that's the case let's just agree to disagree.
A very interesting set of reasons. By the way, those specific extensions vastly speedup your browser, there can be no debate over that.
Regarding ClicktoFlash, I didn't know about what you say regarding false reporting, if indeed the case. Maybe someone else here does. That said, if so, then your worries are assuaged, they will get their revenue as if you did. You are on that page after all so what's the difference other than your own suffering. If they are not reported you have a point. However, I am not convinced the advertisers nor the blog site should be able to over heat my MBP and flatten my batteries, but that's just me.
I do click on many Flash items when I want to see them and they run, that's the beauty of ClicktoFlash, you choose. What I do like is there are not items running automatically, without my consent, that take up my bandwidth that I pay for or heat up my MBP and drain its battery. I also have Little Snitch running at all times and click to refuse every single request from Adobe / Flash which occurs on almost every page of every web site I visit even though I am running ClicktoFlash, think about that for a moment!
As to blocking ads, I suppose you with your noble attitude must sit through all the TV ads, all the way without leaving your seat, during shows. After all that's how the cable company makes even more money off you, assuming the ads work that is. If not then why have a different standard for TV and the internet? Or perhaps like me you don't watch regular TV only Netflix.
In the end, of course it is up to the individual and perhaps you think me silly.
As to blocking ads, I suppose you with your noble attitude must sit through all the TV ads, all the way without leaving your seat, during shows. After all that's how the cable company makes even more money off you, assuming the ads work that is. If not then why have a different standard for TV and the internet? Or perhaps like me you don't watch regular TV only Netflix.
As some may recall from a recent thread, I don't watch broadcast TV, so don't have to tolerate TV ads. In those instances where I'm watching a streaming service that uses ads, sure I'll watch them. I may not pay much attention, but it's the ad company's imperative to get my attention, not mine to give it.
Again i disagree. Light room pretty much fuctions the same on the Mac as it does on windows. Material design is a reference for how Google wants all apps to look for its OS just like what Apple has done with iOS 7 flat design. But not only does material design look out of place on iOS it doesn't even use the same gestures. its Google thinking they can fish iOS users over to there platform to gather data for ads more easily. And it seems like it's worked on you
It looks to me like we agree. Material Design is out of place on iOS. Yep. My point is that it's an integrated Google experience, and you're absolutely right that they are working towards their bottom line of gathering data to sell ads. You're also correct that it's "worked on me," as I'm all in.
Rage on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Thanks for pointing out how Adobe codes to the lowest common denominator, can't truly innovate any longer and codes "hack jobs" like mobile Lightroom so that it can be ported to Android easier...and foists that low-end experience on those of us that value professional OSes and equipment... starting with the abomination of their pathetic installers.
Yup. You hit the nail on the head why we can't have anything nice or forward thinking from Adobe regarding professional creative software. Thank Microsoft, which is even worse and not worth going into details.
Note: there's an interesting thread on the Adobe Photoshop forums, with requests to port PS to Linux. A lot of entertainment studios have workflows and pipelines created with specialized software running on Linux. I've stated there that if Adobe wanted to, they probably could easily port PS to Linux using a lot of the OSX code. Naturally, that is if Adobe still wasn't coding for Windows first rather than Apple, where they received their early successes...as well as reality checks pointed out to them (eminent FlashTrash™ death because power efficiency was someone's "dream weaver")... lest we forget.
Yeah, Adobe's interfaces suck, but at least they're consistent.
Comments
I'd agree, that or they just ripped it off .
Why don't you get a android phone and get off this site android material design is nothing special it just adds more confusion when you see apps made for touch wiz. Google should be using the iOS 7 design not there hideous own one
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
People who hate Material Design are generally not Google product users. For those of us who use Google products whenever possible, Material Design is a very nice integration between mobile and web. When I'm on any of the iOS, MacOS, Windows, or Android devices in our home, it's nice when the apps I use most have similar interfaces. Google's stance is that they want people to use their services, and integrating the experience across services makes them more attractive, familiar, and usable.
It's like a Microsoft Office or Adobe product on Mac and PC. You would expect to have a similar experience on either and not have to go learn a bunch of new workflows from the host OS's UX direction. There's really no reason for a brand of hardware to influence how I interact with the software I choose to use.
Except those products ARE designed to match OS X or Windows. Your excuse is wrong. You don't want a Mac user to get a program that doesn't operate like a Mac program. Likewise, little Google needs to follow iOS design conventions. Apple needs to lay down the law here.
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
Except those products ARE designed to match OS X or Windows. Your excuse is wrong. You don't want a Mac user to get a program that doesn't operate like a Mac program. Likewise, little Google needs to follow iOS design conventions. Apple needs to lay down the law here.
Lightroom on my PC looks and behaves nothing like a Microsoft product. It's an Adobe experience, and it looks almost identical on OSX.
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
While it's certainly the traditional direction, why should the OS dictate UX direction? As we move more to single-page apps and cross-platform products, a software company can make a nice common environment for its users by unifying the application experience, and completely disregarding the OS. It's a different paradigm, but it's neither right or wrong. I prefer it.
FWIW, I spent about a minute writing the previous post.
Problem with Flash is that it's a bit outdated now and there are more efficient ways of doings a lot of things that it does, and (more importantly) it's used as the format of choice for so much crappy ad spam. I liked not having to put up with that with Safari as my main browser, but I don't get that same luxury with Chrome, without installing extensions, which I don't want to do. Meh, swings and roundabouts, at least Chrome isn't eating my memory like Safari does.
You can set Chrome plugins like Flash to play only on click (https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/142064?hl=en).
I disagree. Material is a well thought out paradigm, and it looks nice in all the apps that have adopted it. Moreso than the iOS7+ aesthetic in some cases; it's still pretty clear that buttons are buttons.
I also don't think it's much of a copy of either Microsoft and/or Apple. From the most superficial angle, yes, it's "flat" and eschews gradients and lighting effects, but it's much more than that, it's a whole design framework. And it's good.
Also, I wouldn't say Flash is trash. Hell, I wouldn't even have Chrome installed if I thought that, as it existed as my "browser for when I need to use something that uses Flash". Problem with Flash is that it's a bit outdated now and there are more efficient ways of doings a lot of things that it does, and (more importantly) it's used as the format of choice for so much crappy ad spam. I liked not having to put up with that with Safari as my main browser, but I don't get that same luxury with Chrome, without installing extensions, which I don't want to do. Meh, swings and roundabouts, at least Chrome isn't eating my memory like Safari does.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
Again i disagree. Light room pretty much fuctions the same on the Mac as it does on windows. Material design is a reference for how Google wants all apps to look for its OS just like what Apple has done with iOS 7 flat design. But not only does material design look out of place on iOS it doesn't even use the same gestures. its Google thinking they can fish iOS users over to there platform to gather data for ads more easily. And it seems like it's worked on you
Bite your tongue!!! I'd dump Apple if they EVER went to this abomination!
Why, it's a nice look. Personally I think it looks nicer than iOS but again iOS has been around for a long while now and probably should go through a makeover.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
I get about the same memory usage with FireFox than I do with Chrome, Midori has the lowest memory footprint for me, I don't use Safari because it's only available for Apple gear. Extensions are a big reason as to why people are having memory problems. I just use AdBlock and the add to Google Drive or read later function and I have zero problems.
Right, from someone who calls chrome low in resource usage... Oh my... Use Firefox and you'll get a LOT less resource usage. Chrome used to low in resource usage 5 years ago, a bit late...
I prefer the way Chrome works, Firefox just seems like old hat now. Resource usage isn't my priority, I'd just like something that doesn't eat memory by the gigabyte, which is what Safari often seems to do on my machine.
Gotta say, that's a rather silly*** rule you have there. May I ask, "why"?
*** I love extensions for all of my browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome)... if they do as they say and add to my productivity getting through about 35 websites per day of necessary information, cataloging it all (Feedly, Evernote, Pocket, Dropbox), managing sometimes up to 5 windows with 50+ tabs open. Click-to-Flash, AdBlock, and Ghostery all add up to a major performance increase, and I dare say not even half of what I do would be possible without those extensions stopping unnecessary bandwidth usage or memory chokes. Then we can talk about the great developer tools extensions.
PS. Yes... Flash is Trash!
Thanks for pointing out how Adobe codes to the lowest common denominator, can't truly innovate any longer and codes "hack jobs" like mobile Lightroom so that it can be ported to Android easier...and foists that low-end experience on those of us that value professional OSes and equipment... starting with the abomination of their pathetic installers.
Yup. You hit the nail on the head why we can't have anything nice or forward thinking from Adobe regarding professional creative software. Thank Microsoft, which is even worse and not worth going into details.
Note: there's an interesting thread on the Adobe Photoshop forums, with requests to port PS to Linux. A lot of entertainment studios have workflows and pipelines created with specialized software running on Linux. I've stated there that if Adobe wanted to, they probably could easily port PS to Linux using a lot of the OSX code. Naturally, that is if Adobe still wasn't coding for Windows first rather than Apple, where they received their early successes...as well as reality checks pointed out to them (eminent FlashTrash™ death because power efficiency was someone's "dream weaver")... lest we forget. :rolleyes:
I also don't think it's much of a copy of either Microsoft and/or Apple. From the most superficial angle, yes, it's "flat" and eschews gradients and lighting effects, but it's much more than that, it's a whole design framework. And it's good.
It's a copy from Microsoft in the sense that they did something very different to what Android and iOS were doing and the later 2 have since gone in the same direction. From comparing the guidelines from Material and Modern, Material obeys all the guidelines for Modern so in that way it's also a copy. Where it differs heavily though is Modern is very flexible with what you can do. It suggest very loose ideas about white space, importance of fonts, less chrome etc. But Material actually goes as far as to suggest spacing sizes, layouts, colours etc.
Obviously Windows Phone included apps that were following the Modern design, but you only have to compare the Bing/MSN apps with something like the start screen or messaging hub to see there's wild differences in what you can produce while following the design.
Quote:
I know you spent a lot of time writing this post but you are 100% wrong. Every app on my phone should not have its own design language i feel it should be consistent to the operating system you are using. I like the way apps look on iOS and Google has to force a design reference it made for its OS on iOS. material design is not something other iOS app developers are going to use on their apps so why bother. Keep that shit on your own os.
I don't install extensions because broadly speaking and in my experience they slow down the browser and interfere with web browsing in ways that are sometimes unpredictable. I also don't necessarily trust extensions the way I trust my browser. Lots of personal and financial details pass through my browser, so having extensions which may be able to intercept that makes me uneasy. I prefer to not take that risk.
Re: Ad blockers, If a website earns its money through ad revenue then it should be able to show me ads when I visit the website. It is then my choice to not visit that website because of the ads. I don't like the idea of scamming content out of websites without allowing them their business model.
Re; ClickToFlash, my understanding is that if I use Safari without Flash installed (as is my preference, despite my resource issues) then the server will be notified than the ad or video or whatever has failed to serve. With ClickToFlash they get no such message, so ads are reported as seen. I think that's both dishonest and not particularly helpful to anyone.
You're welcome to disagree, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the thread, so if that's the case let's just agree to disagree.
A very interesting set of reasons. By the way, those specific extensions vastly speedup your browser, there can be no debate over that.
Regarding ClicktoFlash, I didn't know about what you say regarding false reporting, if indeed the case. Maybe someone else here does. That said, if so, then your worries are assuaged, they will get their revenue as if you did. You are on that page after all so what's the difference other than your own suffering. If they are not reported you have a point. However, I am not convinced the advertisers nor the blog site should be able to over heat my MBP and flatten my batteries, but that's just me.
I do click on many Flash items when I want to see them and they run, that's the beauty of ClicktoFlash, you choose. What I do like is there are not items running automatically, without my consent, that take up my bandwidth that I pay for or heat up my MBP and drain its battery. I also have Little Snitch running at all times and click to refuse every single request from Adobe / Flash which occurs on almost every page of every web site I visit even though I am running ClicktoFlash, think about that for a moment!
As to blocking ads, I suppose you with your noble attitude must sit through all the TV ads, all the way without leaving your seat, during shows. After all that's how the cable company makes even more money off you, assuming the ads work that is. If not then why have a different standard for TV and the internet? Or perhaps like me you don't watch regular TV only Netflix.
In the end, of course it is up to the individual and perhaps you think me silly.
Again i disagree. Light room pretty much fuctions the same on the Mac as it does on windows. Material design is a reference for how Google wants all apps to look for its OS just like what Apple has done with iOS 7 flat design. But not only does material design look out of place on iOS it doesn't even use the same gestures. its Google thinking they can fish iOS users over to there platform to gather data for ads more easily. And it seems like it's worked on you
It looks to me like we agree. Material Design is out of place on iOS. Yep. My point is that it's an integrated Google experience, and you're absolutely right that they are working towards their bottom line of gathering data to sell ads. You're also correct that it's "worked on me," as I'm all in.
Rage on.
Thanks for pointing out how Adobe codes to the lowest common denominator, can't truly innovate any longer and codes "hack jobs" like mobile Lightroom so that it can be ported to Android easier...and foists that low-end experience on those of us that value professional OSes and equipment... starting with the abomination of their pathetic installers.
Yup. You hit the nail on the head why we can't have anything nice or forward thinking from Adobe regarding professional creative software. Thank Microsoft, which is even worse and not worth going into details.
Note: there's an interesting thread on the Adobe Photoshop forums, with requests to port PS to Linux. A lot of entertainment studios have workflows and pipelines created with specialized software running on Linux. I've stated there that if Adobe wanted to, they probably could easily port PS to Linux using a lot of the OSX code. Naturally, that is if Adobe still wasn't coding for Windows first rather than Apple, where they received their early successes...as well as reality checks pointed out to them (eminent FlashTrash™ death because power efficiency was someone's "dream weaver")... lest we forget.
Yeah, Adobe's interfaces suck, but at least they're consistent.