Good design should never come at the expense of good UX, else it's not good design.
Google has just updated its Material Design spec, so some links and commentary I provide here don’t apply anymore. Nonetheless, they’ll remain here for historical purpose.
Check out the set of improvements and new guidelines they provide on their site: material.io/design.
Good news is they provide now a usable Material Design icons site.
Check it out at: material.io/resources/icons
I have a couple of opinions to state regarding the spec —which by the way I think is a great design specification— and its accompanying websites:
I think regarding toggles, you should pick one way to get your point across to the user.
And be consistent about it, do not send mixed signals.
Here is a couple of examples that shows —in my view— incongruent behaviour:
expansion panels —or lists, the icon (
arrow_drop_down) doesn’t represent the state of the panel, but the intent of the user —what will happen if I press on it?
By the guidelines examples:
Here, the visual cue (the arrow) represents intent, not state.
password redaction it’s the other way around:
By the guidelines examples:
Here, the visual cue (the eye) represents state, not intent.
On the other hand, switches are great toggling controls because what they do is show state and intent towards whatever label they have associated.
So here, it’s really up to the developer to find great labels for a great UX.
<o--> Crushing it! (this is off, meaning we are not crushing it) <--o> Crushing it! (this is on, meaning we are crushing it now)
Pardon my ASCII art…
It helps a great deal that the switch makes use of the spec and clearly signals the user when it’s on.
Design languages or specifications should be coherent as a whole.
Some questions that arose from the observations above:
For the second question I think the answer should be yes.
As for the first one, Material Design should go one way or the other, not both, nor keep it undefined.
In my view, taking in consideration the spec’s spirit, the way to go would be for icons to signal intent.
Another less subjective reason to go this way is that showing intent allows for a series of actions to be chained using one changing icon —whether you should be doing this or not is debatable, the points is that you can— since you are always letting the user know what comes next if they click on it.
You can’t convey this information using icons to show state, since the next state can’t be known by looking at the icon alone, you can only know what the present state is.
Nonetheless, using non-actionable icons to present state is OK.
In the end what I mean is:
Keep the expansion panels the way they are now, and change how the password redaction icons work by swaping the icons.
Switch buttons are good as they are.
I know this subject is a tough one. It’s been discussed for ages:
Jef Raskin was writing about this issue quite a few years ago in The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems, an Addison-Wesley Professional publication from April 8th, 2000.
Alan Cooper also discusses this in his book About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design published by Wiley on September 2nd, 2014 (looks like the firs edition is from August 25th, 1995):
Flip-flop button controls are very efficient. They save space by controlling two mutually exclusive options with a single control. The problem with flip-flop controls is that they fail to fulfill the second duty of every control - to inform the user of their current state. If the button says ON when the state is off, it is unclear what the setting is. If it is OFF when the state is off, however, where is the ON button? Don’t use them. Not on buttons and no on menus!
There is a good amount of discussion about this subject here and here on StackExchange UX.
Now let’s talk about a couple of websites related to Material Design, and some bad UX —AKA UX opportunity areas— that I’ve found while using them.
Pages on the Material Design guidelines should include anchors on section headers for easy linking.
It’s very annoying that they don’t do this, it’s a webpage FFS.
A good solution would be to have anchors show when hovering section headers, subheaders or titles.
Trying to be too Material Design at the cost of good UX —or convenience— is not good.
Case in point: I couldn’t link to the password redaction section, because there is no anchor for it!
I find a little frustrating that icons that are basically the same as others, don’t show their aliases.
For example, these are the same icons but you have to find out for yourself:
I get that it must be in the interest of semantics, but believe me, users —like me— end up using icons that look like what we need, not because of what they are named as.
If I need a fricking circle icon for displaying a user status be sure I’ll end up using a fricking fiber_manual_record icon!
I find really irritating that
CTRL + F doesn’t work because icons are dynamically loaded into the page. So you have to use the website’s own search bar for that.
If FontAwesome is doing fine showing all their 2,791 icons I think you’ll do just fine showing 900+.
I think my biggest criticism is that sometimes it looks like Material Design principles are applied at the expense of good UX, when it should be the other way around:
UX should come in first, maybe at the expense of some Material Design.
Ideally, Material Design should reach a point where this trade-off should never happen.