Well it's sure kinda academic to define shadows as flat or not... Probably we don't care about that in a few years because the socalled "flat" (with howmany chrome might be there) will be a common used practice everywhere :) Just had the idea of making a segmented control but with raised chrome from MD and put the icons (completely flat) inside... So I can keep the info icons (without any chrome)
ok... well imo I belive that even "flat" means that you still are allowed to use shadows and beveled buttons, but with less chrome. Means not so extreme 3d effects and so on. I mean, there are a lot of people out there how don't get the win8 UI because of its extreme flatness. And for me it feels like Material Design is the first really useful implementation of the flat design concept.
Hehe, trying out this chat feature for the first time... So when if I understand you right, the shadows of the "raised buttons" aren't "chrome" to you per definition because it's still "flat"?
Well probably we have a different definition of "chrome". To me, "chrome" means anything beside text that emphasizes affordances. So the shadows are already "chrome" to me. By saying "adding chrome to icons" I mean "adding shadows like the buttons around the icons"... Hope that will clear it up a little bit :-)
To your last scentence: I had something similar in mind by providing those icons with a button chrome. So it would be basically the old-fashioned icon tool bar. But as I already stated, that would violate Google Material Design guidelines that we use as a darft. We could ignore it but I believe that we will see more and more chromeless actionable icons emerge in the future, so I'm actually OK to stick with chromeless icons. I'm just not sure if I want to lose the possibility to display info with an icon (that wouldn't be actionable due its info nature).
Discussion between Alexej Froehlich a…
Discussion between Alexej Froehlich a…