Hacker News Reader

Comment by drcode | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one who's disappointed by Google's UI library chops? How can they think it is sensible to release a UI design without having concrete, usable implementations in all the major UI frontends, including bootstrap, out of the box?

The fact that someone outside of Google had to build this makes it look like Google's design guys have no credibility inside of Google, and are ignored by other Google devs.

View on HN

Google released a concrete, usable set of custom elements that implement Material Design and should be usable in any framework. See the Paper Elements demo here: https://www.polymer-project.org/components/paper-elements/de...

Android L is also shipping with Material Design widgets: https://developer.android.com/preview/material/index.html

Google doesn't really use or promote Bootstrap (much... we're* so big I'm sure it's used somewhere), and Bootstrap is designed for a pre-web components, pre-flexbox world, so it shouldn't be too surprising that we didn't release a theme for it.

* I work for Google

polymer is done by google?

---

aside: I now strongly believe that, by HTML10, no elements will be defined and everything is going to be JS, and then there is going to be a massive HTML5/6 movement, "Hey guys, did you know that its possible to get /native forms/ though the web browser? and it doesn't even require javascript, manages to support in-built validation, you can even have 3d animations, all built-in to the html5 framework!"

Except that native forms are clunky and the validation is very basic. Javascript can save you some unnecessary requests to the server with quick & easy initial validation checks & allow you more control over the behavior of the page after form data submission (via xhr).

Javascript is also currently faster for animating, and can do a wider variety of animation.

I do not doubt the usefulness of JS, but...

so many blogs I've seen that require JS, when all they serve is text content...

It seems like it would be painful to use from react, which seems like a "major framework".

I'm not saying Google has any obligations to offer more code to support materials design... I'm just saying the impact of their design work is going to be limited because of it. (That certainly might be on purpose,I suppose)

Why would it be difficult to use from React? I haven't used React myself, but if it can produce DOM, it can use custom elements.

Actually with Bootstrap it's possible to create complex interfaces (I had written from scratch the Play Music interface with almost 1/3 of the markup needed by Google)... By the way I don't think google must release an implementation of their guidelines on every framework on the web.

They've released preview documentation of a design centered around an unreleased OS and you are upset they don't have Google implementations in all the other non-google UI frameworks already?

Its early days, they're clearly doing this first with Android L, Web Components (polymer-project.org) and Angular (material.angularjs.org).

And you're upset the implementation for Bootstrap is not done by Google? Boo hoo.

Google can do whatever they like, it just doesn't seem like they're using their available resources to accomplish a serious goal they seem to have (helping materials design become an impactful design language) and it will be interesting to see how the future of this design effort plays out.

You're not the only one thinking that.

The ionic team is helping build angular specific material components. Google should have cleaned up its own stuff here.

https://material.angularjs.org/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com