Maybe what we've learned is none of this actually matters .
Would users even notice? Everything just looks flat with blocks of colour buttons and text labels everywhere anyway in a flat design world. Maybe the extra effort would make zero difference.
Who really cares other than designers.
I don't know if "we've learned none of this actually matters". Maybe users don't pick up on it consciously, but I'd be surprised if consistent icons wouldn't result in a better perceived quality in a way or another, or lesser visual scanning time. Is there evidence supporting either point of view? Or just the current wisdom of the crowd?
Looks like DN is feeling pessimistic today. Let's bring that line of thinking to its logical conclusion...
....Does anything really matter? We're all just insignificant bags of cellular tissue spinning in circles around a minuscule portion of the universe on a giant rock.
In the meantime though, before you die and are forgotten like we all will be, why not take some pride in your job and make things as good as they possibly can be? You know what does matter? Progress.
"none of this actually matters for the success of a product or service."
Everything material design is shit anyway.
I kind of agree. Everything about it already looks pretty outdated.
so brave. tell us more.
never been a fan of the material design icon set. It's the weakest link of the design framework and IMHO going with a different set will greatly improve your design.
Graphic design is probably really hard.
Can't say I agree that the above is unclear. Maybe I have an inherent affordance because I can see the label Share icon + a laptop = share screen, at least to my mind.
Ya, that's the weakest criticism in the article. I think the more significant issue with these icons is that instead of using their actual share icon, they're using the icon that they designated as "reply", just flipped horizontally.
Thanks for the mention, Vincent!
Yes, we worked on a huge collection following the google Material guidelines (4000 icons...), and we were surprised at first by the inconsistencies in the Google icons. Another thing we noted is that the typeface are not always the same, sometimes it looks like an helvetica, sometimes more like a squared font.
You can check our collection here, i hope you will find it more consistent: http://www.nova-icons.com/
We worked hard on being consistent. But being a team of just 4 people make it easier for consistency. In the Google case, I guess there are tons of designers from different projects that create icons, that are merged later on the public collection. I don't think they have a centralized team for icons. Does anyone knows how they works?
Also, we couldn't figure out why some icons are in solid style (mainly made from black parts), and others are in line style. Cannot understand the logic of it.
And then there are some icons that are just plain bad. Take the motorcycle, for instance.
This isn't bad naive design this is bad OVER design. Someone has self indulgently tried to do a minimalist motorcycle and failed miserably.