The aim of design unification is often a false path, born out of convenience for the designer, and it’s pursuit shows a certain level of disrespect to both the user and other designers. Programming languages - arguably interaction design in its purest form - are a more interesting path towards better software (see Smalltalk, Swift playgrounds, and the work at VPRI).
Material is not what software is made of, but it is a pretty good sign of what marketing is made of these days.
One month after creator and leader of Google+, Vic Gundotra, quietly quit, Google chief Sergey Brin told a conference audience last week that involvement in Google+ was “a mistake.” He made the exact opposite statement in 2011.
Benefits? It runs anywhere (yea ipad too). Interaces with 3d objects possible. Physics instead of animations or Tweenings. Animate a click on a button? Just give the button a weight and friction and apply a force on a click. No limits because you implement your own rendering engine. Founders say it´s the future, forget the “old way”. Designers can play with the interface, tweak physics with sliders until it “feels” right. Inspired by Game Engines / Interfaces. Founders heavy appreciate “unity 3d”. Here´s a talk
We’re in the future, and interfaces are falling behind the curve. Software should feel as responsive and human as the people interacting with it. Design should respond and react with vitality. Too much design is created with an old, static web mentality, and not pushing the new mediums we have to design for. What is it like building interfaces with an animated foundation? Why is it better? This will be an adventure into the magical cosmos of animation. Cartoons, Anvils, Jokes, Jokes people might not get, Dynamite, Stage Dives!