just, not good.
EDIT: okay, I'll be honest, it looks a bit better now that I see it on my phone...but still not a huge fan
It's definitely a step up from the infamous 'impossible left turn' icon Apple released out a few years back.
Personally I like this icon from Google. It works in the apple ecosystem and isn't overly complicated. What do you not like about it?
Good point, though to me, the new one looks very amateurish. I really like all the new material design work, but this icon doesn't seem to do it justice...especially the red against the green.
Overall, it just seems like someone threw some shapes together in 5 minutes and called it a day.
I laughed out loudly.
Surely a result from recognition-based user testing, instead of just looking nice. Do you instantly recognise that it's Google Maps from the icon? If yes, it's a good design as it does what was probably intended.
Still, I'd like to see them lose the "g." I recognize it based on the red pin alone.
Why is that? What would removing the G do? Does the fact that you recognize it without it that every other human being will also recognize it?
Do you understand the goals of this design enough to make the call that removing the g would make it a better app icon?
I like to critique design as if I'm obviously the only user it was designed for. It makes my critique much easier.
I see that you like it, but why is that? Making it easier to yourself to critique is a good thing?
It was sarcasm, I was paraphrasing what he would hypothetically say.
Probably should have added inverted commas, sorry.
Actually I thought you were being sarcastic, and then I thought, maybe you're not. Then I decided I should be open to listening to what you have to say. And so I decided to ask you instead of either assume it was sarcasm or respond to you. Big problem with many designers is they don't realized that they are biased and don't know how to think about thinking.
Removing the "g" reduces the wildly overcluttered icon that they have right now... of course I understand the goal of icon design.
Look, right now they have 3 elements that they're using to drive recognition... the red pin, the color of the maps, and the g. The g is by far the smallest, and the least useful for quick identification. It forces them to offset the pin which, in my opinion, creates an awkward balance for the icon.
Lose the g, center the red pin, and you'll have a simpler, more attractive, less cluttered app icon.
Another Google app that doesn't follow their own guidelines and yet another reason why you shouldn't either. Visually it looks cleaner though.
Swiping from the left edge to open the side drawer is a really bad idea on an app where the main interaction is dragging anywhere on the screen.
Not sure I agree, I haven't been able to show that drawer unless it's with a very conscientious swipe from the left, dragging did not produce that nor did I feel annoyed at any point.
There is a very clear disconnect in "material design" between the high level (borderline philosophical) principles, and the day-to-day implementation of these principles. They aren't guidelines, so can't be followed. They are open for interpretation, which means that even within the same company you'll get varied results when different designers implement using the same philosophy.
It's going to take quite some time before Google filters their theory down to actual praxis and start becoming unified in its design language.
First, I'll say the new app looks clean. A definite improvement.
But... and I may be being too critical. Google's Material Design ostensibly draws the bulk of its inspiration from the real world -- materials like cards, motions mimicking those governed by the laws of physics, etc. And yet they make some odd choices in their interfaces that, I think, work against the models they're trying to create.
As mentioned already, the main view is the draggable map, yet you can slide from the left to open the side drawer. To me that is not consistent with a design based on materials because the map is an endless canvas. It would make more sense if the main view were not draggable, and thus opening the side drawer would be akin to sliding cards away or into view.
I'm a little bothered by the placement of the hamburger icon. It lies within the element that is used for searching, but is in no way related to that, and it almost decouples the icon from the element it summons.
When you tap the blue direction button, a new view slides up, as a card would, from the bottom. On this view you're given a back arrow, indicating a horizontal motion, which is inconsistent with the vertical movement bringing the screen into view. Perhaps an X would be better.
Again, maybe I'm being too critical or my expected models are too literal, but Google is really pushing this Material Design concept, and personally I think the implementations have fallen short.
Agreed on all accounts, specially the third point.
The back button makes even less sense considering the blue card slides up, so the best option would be either an [x] or a way to slide it back down.
You can slide the new screen back down by dragging anywhere on the screen.
However I agree they should have ditched the back button. Seems like a lazy way to accommodate iOS users who are used to seeing the back button without sticking to their card metaphor.
Actually, they have two panes that slide up and have back buttons — one allows you to close by dragging down, the other doesn't.
I'm fond of Material as a design philosophy, but it's clear that it'll take some time for implementation to get consistent across the board.
And yes, the back button was certainly a compromise for keeping iOS patterns users already know x pushing new Material Patterns.
I think that's transitional and they'll just drop iOS defaults in the future — John Gruber wrote a good piece about this earlier this week.
Also regarding point 3, I really wish the X was in the same place as your original tap. Especially now that my phone screen is too big for me to reach both corners with one hand without repositioning my grip.
ITT: Not seeing the forest for the trees.
Like the material design overall. Not sure if it's just me, the animation and transition seems to become slower in general, maybe intentionally.
Lyft integration would be nice since they're giving Uber ride estimations.
I'm not crazy about this Material design but I think it looks good in Maps. It's better than how it was before. One feature Maps needs that Waze has is to be able to force the audio to the phone speaker. It sounds trivial but if you're in a car with bluetooth, and you're not currently in bluetooth mode, you can't hear the turn-by-turn. So if you're listening to the radio you can't hear it unless you're on the bluetooth input. Make sense?
As far as material design goes, I really can't use this Google Inbox. It's such a hard to read mess to me. This may be good for people who keep hundreds of unread emails. Not I.
BTW, anyone want an Inbox invite?
I'd be interested to try Inbox if you have an invite spare... firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent! Enjoy it!
Thanks Rick! Will do!
Really glad they pulled the hard drop shadow. It was in the only app on my home screen that stood out like a sore thumb.
Also really happy the app doesn't fade the black any more. I always thought my phone was out of batteries when I started it from scratch. Not to mention the awful drop shadow on the boot screen.
The new icon is crude and hits you over the head with the g. After so many years and being a quasi monopoly in maps there's got to be a more legacy and simple way to do this.
Material design style guides or not, google is still struggling with design.