I see many frameworks, moving to a material design visual. and using flexbox to hold the elements, among them.
Considering that they are UI components, they should be used as a complement to something already modeled, not? an example of this is jquery UI .
I have seen dealership sites using, in which the niche is people who still use technologies incompatible with part of the framework of these frameworks.
Finally, I wonder if it's okay to adopt a design specification for an entire project?
Following guidelines is not a rule. They are, as the word says, guidelines.
Why would you follow iOS design standards to make an Android application? Robot users are accustomed to the look and feel of apps. So it works the other way around.
Windows users are accustomed to Fluent Design, Google's with Material and Apple's with Flat.
Creating a new design pattern is valid, but good analysis has to be done. In standard and smart way you want to let your user use a platform that he is already used to and that he already knows how to use. It is more costly to re-teach the audience to use your application.
Reusing an already defined pattern is shrewd. Your user is already suited to the usage style. Material Design is present in all Google products. If you use the search engine, Gmail, YouTube, Maps or Chrome, you know Material Design. And so it also works with your user.
Your application adapts to each environment. In Android you have some standards of the material, but without losing its form, the essence of your application. In iOS always have the menu at the bottom of the screen, this is how you use the vast majority of apps on this system. In Windows Phone ... well, I do not know what WP is like.
Uber has its own design, its own guidelines , but it fits every operating system. That is, on Android, iOS and Windows the visual changes, with some adaptations to the guidelines defined by each platform.
Do not be foolish to think that the guidelines of a specification contemplate only beautiful colors and interesting animations.
I'llusetheexampleMaterial:
Themainactionbuttoninthelowerrightcornerisdefault.Theuserexposedtothisdesignisaccustomedtothisoperation.Withthecardsqueuedside-by-sideandthebuttonpositionbacktoo.
Allthesecomponentsarestrategicallypositionedandstudiesofhumanbehaviorhavebeenputinplaceinacertainway.InI/O2014itwassaidthatMaterialDesignwasbuiltonreal-worldinteractions.
The material does not attach to Android and can be used in web applications, as it is done on all Google products and more external sites.
In conclusion, there are no right and wrong. The pattern of interaction design should be defined by you and your team, there are several options, including:
The wrong might be to not use a default. Your project may gain a pattern during development, this is the most common case. However, when you already have something solid, concrete, well-defined and documented, development flows better, easier and faster.
In general terms, yes. And not just for one project, but for the entire family of projects if possible.
Let's take the recently released Atlassian Design Guidelines design language . >
Warning: I work at Atlassian, but as a developer and not as a designer.
In the last year the company has focused on a deep restructuring in terms of UI / UX, which started with the brand itself (logos and typographies) until the standardization of the components used in its various products with AtlasKit .
It is important to note that this is not a simple freshness, fetish, random decision or because the company has money left over.
Frequent and varied surveys, including feedback from thousands of users around the world and a range of other statistical data, have been conducted, and it has been found that provide a consistent other features) in your various products is essential to the business .
In addition to its own products, offering the design guide to the general public allows third parties to create integrations and extensions for Atlassian products while maintaining a consistent user experience. Everyone wins.
Obviously, not all companies are able to invest in creating their own identity, so they become as important as the "design frameworks" quoted in the question.
It makes all sense for a project that is starting to specify and adopt a design pattern. It would just be important to have an experienced designer to do this correctly.
An important factor to consider is that adopting a UI / UX pattern to guide development can not become a limiting factor.
Some years ago, I worked in a company where a design pattern was developed but with no reasonable possibility of extending the components.
This compelled developers to create "visual gambiarras" for the more "different" cases, which in reality were just the most complex and important.
So, it is a mistake to think that, having mounted a design specification using some framework, the work is over. Designers are needed continuously, whenever a new type of interaction is identified.
My response, although it should not be interpreted as an absolute rule, is based on research, evidence, and actual and objective data within a common business scenario, not merely an ethos or philosophy arbitrarily followed.
In practice, the persisting questions are not whether or not a design pattern is in place - this is almost a consensus, but the best way to do it within budget.
