Material-esque Thread Design

(09-09-2016, 07:15 AM)Skryptec Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(09-08-2016, 11:17 PM)Vxn Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Good work, Silence.
Work is high quality, unlike Skyrptic

Go fuck yourself.

You make good thread designs tho.

So I went over it and found a few things that are either lacking or against the official guidelines for "Material Design" by Google. For starters, your header backgrounds have rounded corners. This isn't something "Material Design" usually do, actually I don't think I've ever seen Google do it themselves. That is a minor "strike" of sorts though. Another "mistake" from the official guidelines is the color choice which is; #5a5ad2. This code is not among Google's official color guidelines for "Material Design" and it holds too much white in it to be used for classic material design. (Which is the only form of material design.)

This might be because you are only partly done with the design, but you are missing the key element of Material Design. Which is depth. Material Design is made with the idea that it is suppose to appear as paper and sheets from a top down view. Hence, a depth is required to show what is above what. This is missing, which essentially means that this is more akin to Microsoft's "Modern Style" than it is to "Material Design". A few other minor things is the addition of the pattern in the background. Google do not use patterns for their backgrounds but rather a dark grey color, the reason for this is simple. A pattern takes too much attention.

Also on the "jobs" icons, they have a colored outline. Another thing Google never use with their material design as far as I am aware. They use a white (thick) border with depth added underneath to separate it from other elements. The random addition to red at some places also look off to me. It clashes with the purple and not in a good way. The red color use (#ff815f) is also not among Google's official guidelines for Material Design, and again, has too much white in it.

(09-09-2016, 07:47 AM)Theós Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(09-09-2016, 07:15 AM)Skryptec Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(09-08-2016, 11:17 PM)Vxn Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Good work, Silence.
Work is high quality, unlike Skyrptic

Go fuck yourself.

You make good thread designs tho.

Lmao yeah he does. Don't know what Vxn has against him.

(09-09-2016, 12:14 PM)Crovus Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

So I went over it and found a few things that are either lacking or against the official guidelines for "Material Design" by Google. For starters, your header backgrounds have rounded corners. This isn't something "Material Design" usually do, actually I don't think I've ever seen Google do it themselves. That is a minor "strike" of sorts though. Another "mistake" from the official guidelines is the color choice which is; #5a5ad2. This code is not among Google's official color guidelines for "Material Design" and it holds too much white in it to be used for classic material design. (Which is the only form of material design.)

This might be because you are only partly done with the design, but you are missing the key element of Material Design. Which is depth. Material Design is made with the idea that it is suppose to appear as paper and sheets from a top down view. Hence, a depth is required to show what is above what. This is missing, which essentially means that this is more akin to Microsoft's "Modern Style" than it is to "Material Design". A few other minor things is the addition of the pattern in the background. Google do not use patterns for their backgrounds but rather a dark grey color, the reason for this is simple. A pattern takes too much attention.

Also on the "jobs" icons, they have a colored outline. Another thing Google never use with their material design as far as I am aware. They use a white (thick) border with depth added underneath to separate it from other elements. The random addition to red at some places also look off to me. It clashes with the purple and not in a good way. The red color use (#ff815f) is also not among Google's official guidelines for Material Design, and again, has too much white in it.

Thanks for the critiques Crovus. I was originally going to go ahead and add depth as I went, but then decided it'd be easier when I can go through once I'm finished with the basis. I added the background temporarily so people wouldn't be blinded by white on light grey (which sometimes blends on screens if they're not adjusted properly), it's not based off of Google's Material Design, it's just a tad similar. I'm gonna end up changing the title to a different one (on the forum and the design), just got it down in between making the design and finishing something else for school. Yeah, I was trying to bring some contrast out with the orange/red, but I do need to change it again to the purple. I'll look at their guidelines to see various color pallets though, as originally I was working on a screen that made the purple look blue, but now I'm working on a color corrected screen.

(09-09-2016, 12:38 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Thanks for the critiques Crovus. I was originally going to go ahead and add depth as I went, but then decided it'd be easier when I can go through once I'm finished with the basis. I added the background temporarily so people wouldn't be blinded by white on light grey (which sometimes blends on screens if they're not adjusted properly), it's not based off of Google's Material Design, it's just a tad similar. I'm gonna end up changing the title to a different one (on the forum and the design), just got it down in between making the design and finishing something else for school. Yeah, I was trying to bring some contrast out with the orange/red, but I do need to change it again to the purple. I'll look at their guidelines to see various color pallets though, as originally I was working on a screen that made the purple look blue, but now I'm working on a color corrected screen.

Well you called it "Material Design" and there is only one version of Material Design. (You even compared it to Google's Material Design.) Hence, it is "Material Design" just a failed attempt at it. (As it is right now anyway.) If you looked at Google's Guidelines then the screen doesn't matter as they give you the color code for each color they use as well as the ability to download a "Swatches" set from their site. The color codes you uses aren't even among Google's. There is a reason that Google uses those colors specifically, it has something to do with the contrasts.

(09-09-2016, 12:45 PM)Crovus Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(09-09-2016, 12:38 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Thanks for the critiques Crovus. I was originally going to go ahead and add depth as I went, but then decided it'd be easier when I can go through once I'm finished with the basis. I added the background temporarily so people wouldn't be blinded by white on light grey (which sometimes blends on screens if they're not adjusted properly), it's not based off of Google's Material Design, it's just a tad similar. I'm gonna end up changing the title to a different one (on the forum and the design), just got it down in between making the design and finishing something else for school. Yeah, I was trying to bring some contrast out with the orange/red, but I do need to change it again to the purple. I'll look at their guidelines to see various color pallets though, as originally I was working on a screen that made the purple look blue, but now I'm working on a color corrected screen.

Well you called it "Material Design" and there is only one version of Material Design. (You even compared it to Google's Material Design.) Hence, it is "Material Design" just a failed attempt at it. (As it is right now anyway.) If you looked at Google's Guidelines then the screen doesn't matter as they give you the color code for each color they use as well as the ability to download a "Swatches" set from their site. The color codes you uses aren't even among Google's. There is a reason that Google uses those colors specifically, it has something to do with the contrasts.

All I gotta say is this is fucking Sexy XD

(09-09-2016, 12:45 PM)Crovus Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

(09-09-2016, 12:38 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Thanks for the critiques Crovus. I was originally going to go ahead and add depth as I went, but then decided it'd be easier when I can go through once I'm finished with the basis. I added the background temporarily so people wouldn't be blinded by white on light grey (which sometimes blends on screens if they're not adjusted properly), it's not based off of Google's Material Design, it's just a tad similar. I'm gonna end up changing the title to a different one (on the forum and the design), just got it down in between making the design and finishing something else for school. Yeah, I was trying to bring some contrast out with the orange/red, but I do need to change it again to the purple. I'll look at their guidelines to see various color pallets though, as originally I was working on a screen that made the purple look blue, but now I'm working on a color corrected screen.

Well you called it "Material Design" and there is only one version of Material Design. (You even compared it to Google's Material Design.) Hence, it is "Material Design" just a failed attempt at it. (As it is right now anyway.) If you looked at Google's Guidelines then the screen doesn't matter as they give you the color code for each color they use as well as the ability to download a "Swatches" set from their site. The color codes you uses aren't even among Google's. There is a reason that Google uses those colors specifically, it has something to do with the contrasts.

Well, I went back and am currently looking at Google's Material Design for a reference. I'm changing it to a blue color, but when you said that Google makes use of the design to appear like paper upon paper, the "depth". Then I looked at the Google's area, as you said they don't round off the corners of things.

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

[/hide]

Did my best to give you some feedback.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but pussy footing isn't gonna make you better.

(09-10-2016, 04:43 AM)Nuance Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Did my best to give you some feedback.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but pussy footing isn't gonna make you better.

Don't worry man, everyone in the graphic sector toughened up when it came to critiques and feedback because of @12 xD

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Well, I went back and am currently looking at Google's Material Design for a reference. I'm changing it to a blue color, but when you said that Google makes use of the design to appear like paper upon paper, the "depth". Then I looked at the Google's area, as you said they don't round off the corners of things.

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

For starters, your header backgrounds have rounded corners. This isn't something "Material Design" usually do, actually I don't think I've ever seen Google do it themselves.

This was my point on rounded corners, in your header backgrounds. These backgrounds had rounded corners on all corner sides. That is something Google has never done, they even say you shouldn't do it. The only reason you would do this is to make the header background a separate "card" from the next "card" following it. If you wanted that then you'd need depth and most importantly, a space between each "cards". Neither of which you had in the previews I reviewed. So no, it wasn't accurate to Google's material design guidelines. What you made later however was, as you made the headers into a part of the same "card" as the rest.

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

And I did call it "Material Design", but no there is not only one Material Design, this is my take on it. Google just dominates the Material Design area, and on the topic of you mentioning that the original color used isn't even on the Google Guidelines,

Bwhahaha. Dominates? Dominates, really? Google designed and created Material Design. They are the first and the only people to have done so. They are the "artist behind the art". If you try to mimic material design, or their "art" then you need to follow their guidelines, otherwise it isn't their "art". What they say about it is law. In the same manner as if the entire world says a painting looks like a elephant, but the person who painted it says it is a pig, then it is a pig no matter what people say. You can call it whatever you want, but if it doesn't follow the guidelines nor does it do it correctly then it isn't "material design" but a failed knockoff of it if you try to sell it off as such.

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

They say they recommend it, though it's not requisite.

Hidden Content

You must

[To see links please register here]

or

[To see links please register here]

to view this content.

This code is not among Google's official color guidelines for "Material Design" and it holds too much white in it to be used for classic material design. (Which is the only form of material design.)

Note the parts about "Classic Material Design" and the reason why I pointed out the color. Too much white in a color makes it look bland and boring, hence it doesn't draw enough attention. Material Design uses intense colors on primary elements, which is why the colors are referred to as "primary" in their guidelines. This is to make sure that people look at what the designers want them to look at. Drawing attention, this is basic knowledge and the most basic goal for a designer. Now Google recommends the use of these colors, and for it to be "classic material design" at it's core you would need to use them. However, as long as the colors are intense enough then it really doesn't matter. Though Google managed to find the perfect balance in contrasts in these colors.

You can either spent hours trying to find a better or just as good color simply to spite me or you can just use what they have found already as it covers all color types.

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Even if this is a "failed attempt" at being a Material Design, this is still one of the first thread designs I've done, and I'm pretty proud so far. Think I've come a fairly decent way considering how horrible my laptop is and how I'm slowly learning various things about graphics.

Even if it is your 1st or 100th, then that doesn't make it better or worse. I do not review, judge and critic design based on the experience of the artist, but the work itself. People learn by mistakes, sugar-coating that will ensure that artists won't learn, at least not quickly, and I am not cruel enough to force people to work 2-10 years longer than they need. Hence, if you cannot take feedback without coming up with excuses (I admit, blaming your laptop was a new one) then I suggest you step out of the artist light a bit and grow up. If you can go on without making more excuses, then great.

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

I've edited the theme as a final project, there may be polish to the design afterwords. But this is most likely the final project.

Well the shadows are a bit too intense, and the colored borders around the "icons" are still there. Though it has seen some improvement.

(09-09-2016, 08:43 PM)Silence Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

@12 my fiancee, @272, got mad cause there shouldn't be any background patterns on it and said you should go to hell, and that you should go fuck yourself.

Wait, wait what? Your fiancee got mad because there shouldn't be a pattern there (like I said) and then told me to go to hell for being correct? What.