Material design is among the worst design languages I've ever seen. Developers without an eye for design typically use native widget toolkits which are superior to material design.
Gestures may be commonplace but are not understood. They are inconsistently implemented and you can tell the general populous doesn't understand them if you watch folks use them (or mistakenly trigger them) 'in the wild'.
Material design documentation is internally inconsistent. The numerous re-implementations are inconsistent. Usage of the libraries are inconsistent. The first-party usage is inconsistent. The documentation leaves holes in common use cases and steers toward uncommon cases (FAB for example). Consistency is a requisite feature of a good UI design.
Material design completely fails an accessibility review. From the labels referenced in the article to the terrible contrast and lack of meaningful dimension and dividing elements.
No amount of money invested in documentation is going to make material design any better.
Material design should be scrapped. There are no redeeming qualities.
Gestures may be commonplace but are not understood. They are inconsistently implemented and you can tell the general populous doesn't understand them if you watch folks use them (or mistakenly trigger them) 'in the wild'.
Material design documentation is internally inconsistent. The numerous re-implementations are inconsistent. Usage of the libraries are inconsistent. The first-party usage is inconsistent. The documentation leaves holes in common use cases and steers toward uncommon cases (FAB for example). Consistency is a requisite feature of a good UI design.
Material design completely fails an accessibility review. From the labels referenced in the article to the terrible contrast and lack of meaningful dimension and dividing elements.
No amount of money invested in documentation is going to make material design any better.
Material design should be scrapped. There are no redeeming qualities.