Beer CSS is great. I've used it for multiple simple projects and it provides a great DX with the clean html code and the many snippets on the official website. The only downside is that LLMs are quite bad at working with it from my experience, maybe it's just too simple for them..
This is a great project, but material design was the worst thing that Google invented and implemented. Completely tasteless, visually unappealing. Would be nice to see such a project with anything else than material design.
And worth noting that this mostly implements the newer version of material design (M3). However, M3 was a lot more focused on shapes besides just circles and rectangles, but they don’t seem to have quite gotten that here
It's definitely slightly outdated, though. M3 Expressive for instance, the default text field has the textbox labels stay within the textbox, not move into the border.
Because they were more focused on the stills than the movie.
IOW, a screenshot when you scroll it to the "right" spot looks clean and balanced. Personally, I think it's a bad UX decision, but also easy to scroll past once you know.
I'm impressed that, in the meanwhile, Google has already thrown into the grave not one, but two different implementations of Material Design in the web: Material Design Lite [0] and Material Components for the Web [1], bot of which never managed to actually be competitive UI libraries.
edit: Actually, they've thrown a total of _three_ implementations into the grave, as MWC is in maintenance mode already [2].
The trend is people releasing barely conceived software and products written by language models, backed by equally thoughtless marketing materials written by language models.
I thought I'm the hardest to impress gremlin out there, but despite what the comments here look like, this is the best looking and practical MD3 CSS I've seen to the time. Not fond of promoting ethanol consumption though.
For a CSS design site, this looks fairly bad to my eye. I'm not any kind of UX expert, it just looks clunky:
- Lots of text seems slightly offset. It's not all centered within buttons etc.
- The text also doesn't seem to quite line up with the icon on said buttons (it feels relatively a little too high)
- Similarly the text within the little notification popups ("New") isn't centered and hits the top of the outline
- The colours have poor contrast. I don't have any vision impairment but the peach colour doesn't feel distinct enough from the purple/lavender to me. (It's better in light mode when the peach turns to a stronger red).
- On that note, maybe yellow was not the best background for the beer badge when most of the glass is yellow with a bit of white.
I don't know if there's something that makes this render any differently for me than anyone else. I'm using Chrome though so I wouldn't have thought it'd be especially unusual.
I'd expect that people who are specifically trying to show me an interesting CSS library could make at least something show up on the page without JavaScript.
As a matter of policy, I don't whitelist sites that give me neither a clear reason nor initial content.
Right, so it's some JS SPA thing as well (of course).
Out of interest, do you not often find this a problem these days? I feel like there'd be a lot of sites out there that are non-functional or literally do nothing without JS.
It does still happen not infrequently on a certain sort of site which I’ll simplify to “marketing homepage”, but it’s not happening anywhere near as often as it did three years ago. I haven’t tried to assess if this is because more-sensible frameworks have gained popularity, or if the stupid frameworks support server-side rendering better now.
Gotta say, though, that I don’t think one actually misses much in such cases.
Of sites that require JS to not be blank and don’t fit into this main category, my vague feeling is that the rate hasn’t changed much.
I agree with the sibling comment that it's been worse in the past.
But it also tends to correlate with types of sites that I'm not especially interested in anyway.
Well, except the image hosts. Webmasters who claim that their site's primary purpose is to display static images, who cannot or will not just use a normal <img> tag, are beneath contempt.
> For a CSS design site, this looks fairly bad to my eye. I'm not any kind of UX expert, it just looks clunky:
Front page says "Build material design in record time", so it's on par with actual Material Design which is all that, and more. Here's a small thread I collected some time back: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1643607965935476737.html
At how things are actually aligned with respect to each other.
E.,g. in forms all icons are aligned to the top of the input fields they are related to. In titles almost nothing is visually aligned with the center of the title text: the hamburger and the arrows are lower. In menus triangles/arrows are below the visual center of the text. Headers for some reason offset from the left etc.
The results is a disjointed collection of elements that are just crudely assembled together with no rhyme or reason.
I remember how IE5 used to be the bottom rung to test a design against.
(The site renders perfectly for me in Firefox on Linux. I never owned an iPhone. I suppose whatever AI model was working on it also used a single desktop browser.)
They didn’t mean that Safari had a problem on rendering, but that their phone is so narrow, it often highlights pages that weren’t tested properly for mobile.
It seems the 13 mini is 375px wide, which isn’t even that narrow. The smallest I normally tested against was the width of the iPhone SE with 320px.
The two times I’ve used material design to help with a UI decision were the multi select and the filterable select where you can type to filter the select list. I don’t see examples of either of those on this page. Perhaps I missed them?
Material design looks pretty dated these days. I'm wondering why people would still be using it? Is it just a taste thing or something people have been working with for a long time?
I agree. I think it's a function of familiarity. People who interact daily with apps using Material Design get used to it and don't notice how odd it looks to everyone else.
I always thought Material looked bad. It's the worst thing that survived the 2010s flatshit trend, IMO.
But it's familiar, so I can't really be that mad at the people who continue to use it. As often as Google makes things that break their own rules, and as much as Samsung deep-fries Material into a fine dust, people still know that the low-contrast pill-shaped thing is a button.
Has anything come along since Material that was aesthetically better and ergonomically better and equally well-supported across platforms?
ShadCN/ui. Even though everyone uses it (even more so nowadays since LLMs can't get enough of it) it is still an amazing design system and also allows a ton of customization. With the new Create [0] feature letting you customize your styling, it got even farther into the lead with DX and design.
That's because most material design implementations are half baked. There's very specific timing requirements to get most of the UX e.g. the inkwell to feel realistic and often the web variants are not styled well (they have random latencies partially due to the DOM/JS bindings). Material design is a pain the ass to implement faithfully as they are extremely latency sensitive. Try the Flutter and native Android/Kotlin Jetpack compose if you want a feel what they are suppose to feel like.
I guess the question for me is: Why would I want my web presence or platform to look like Android? I understand the use case for “iframes” and web based extensions of apps that use the native framework, but otherwise this reminds me up the early 2010’s where half the mobile websites tried to look like iOS apps.
I understand design can have many goals, but surely it should atleast feel like ... something good? I've never once used a Google interface and felt anything good.
Wonderful project. The page achieved an almost perfect score on lighthouse and no errors or warnings on W3C HTML validator. A huge page with this results is rare nowadays. Good work!
Some animations are painfully slow, though. After opening a menu[0], it takes a long time to close once you click outside.
How well does it work without JS? I assume that's how the ripple effect is implemented.
[0] - https://www.beercss.com/#:~:text=Menus,-code
Edit: they have documented what works and what doesn't with JS disabled here : https://github.com/beercss/beercss/blob/main/docs/JAVASCRIPT...
That file hasn't been updated in a while. Not sure if nothing has changed since then, or if it's outdated.
https://m3.material.io/components/text-fields/overview
IOW, a screenshot when you scroll it to the "right" spot looks clean and balanced. Personally, I think it's a bad UX decision, but also easy to scroll past once you know.
edit: Actually, they've thrown a total of _three_ implementations into the grave, as MWC is in maintenance mode already [2].
[0]: https://github.com/google/material-design-lite
[1]: https://github.com/material-components/material-components-w...
[2]: https://github.com/material-components/material-web/discussi...
Big Arial at random sizes. No margins, no grid, component examples scattered all over the screen.
Though I'm not sure if this can be applied in this specific case.
Not sure pros/cons vs MUI?
- Lots of text seems slightly offset. It's not all centered within buttons etc.
- The text also doesn't seem to quite line up with the icon on said buttons (it feels relatively a little too high)
- Similarly the text within the little notification popups ("New") isn't centered and hits the top of the outline
- The colours have poor contrast. I don't have any vision impairment but the peach colour doesn't feel distinct enough from the purple/lavender to me. (It's better in light mode when the peach turns to a stronger red).
- On that note, maybe yellow was not the best background for the beer badge when most of the glass is yellow with a bit of white.
I don't know if there's something that makes this render any differently for me than anyone else. I'm using Chrome though so I wouldn't have thought it'd be especially unusual.
I'd expect that people who are specifically trying to show me an interesting CSS library could make at least something show up on the page without JavaScript.
As a matter of policy, I don't whitelist sites that give me neither a clear reason nor initial content.
Out of interest, do you not often find this a problem these days? I feel like there'd be a lot of sites out there that are non-functional or literally do nothing without JS.
In any case it's not a great look if they want to encourage adoption of their tools!
Gotta say, though, that I don’t think one actually misses much in such cases.
Of sites that require JS to not be blank and don’t fit into this main category, my vague feeling is that the rate hasn’t changed much.
But it also tends to correlate with types of sites that I'm not especially interested in anyway.
Well, except the image hosts. Webmasters who claim that their site's primary purpose is to display static images, who cannot or will not just use a normal <img> tag, are beneath contempt.
Front page says "Build material design in record time", so it's on par with actual Material Design which is all that, and more. Here's a small thread I collected some time back: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1643607965935476737.html
E.,g. in forms all icons are aligned to the top of the input fields they are related to. In titles almost nothing is visually aligned with the center of the title text: the hamburger and the arrows are lower. In menus triangles/arrows are below the visual center of the text. Headers for some reason offset from the left etc.
The results is a disjointed collection of elements that are just crudely assembled together with no rhyme or reason.
(This site's buttons are too wide and it bumps from left to right when scrolling sideways.)
It's still a free CSS kit, but now I know there's no care behind it.
(The site renders perfectly for me in Firefox on Linux. I never owned an iPhone. I suppose whatever AI model was working on it also used a single desktop browser.)
It seems the 13 mini is 375px wide, which isn’t even that narrow. The smallest I normally tested against was the width of the iPhone SE with 320px.
The whole website feels like a weird hallucination…
But it's familiar, so I can't really be that mad at the people who continue to use it. As often as Google makes things that break their own rules, and as much as Samsung deep-fries Material into a fine dust, people still know that the low-contrast pill-shaped thing is a button.
Has anything come along since Material that was aesthetically better and ergonomically better and equally well-supported across platforms?
[0] https://ui.shadcn.com/create
They are clean and well-designed if implemented correctly:
https://m3.material.io/components/all-buttons
I understand design can have many goals, but surely it should atleast feel like ... something good? I've never once used a Google interface and felt anything good.