Google Material YOU — The Sociological perspective

Material design was introduced by Google in 2014 to create a consolidative visual language that combines functionality, innovation with the principles of good design. Material design was inspired by the properties and behavior of objects in the physical world, like how lighting direction causes a shadow.

In 2018 Google revamped the system with more focus on customization to help people reflex their brand and fit into their context.

I abstain from the formal material design because too much focus on functionality (which is good) and less focus on beauty. And as we know what is defined as beautiful is relative over time and space, that is, beauty is redefined from time to time and also means different things to a different culture. It becomes more trickly when the population you are designing for is left out by these popular systems. In the case of Nigeria and Africa as a whole, the formal material design system does not reflex the people’s culture, which reduces the acceptability and adoption. African is known for its rich culture in terms of artifacts and way of life and as a whole, why material design system advocates for simplicity, which places functionality over what people want.

The formal design also did not meet my acceptability criteria which are behavioral, visceral, and reflexive according to Don Normal. For people to love a product, it must be functional, which has to do with the effectiveness of use, beautiful concerning its appearances, and how pleasant it is to the people senses which are subjective to specific culture or individual at a point in time, and finally reflective, which has to do with the rationalization and intellectualization of a product, this is derived from the first two criteria. The formal Google material design only tick one box which is functionality.

The new Google system is based on four major topics which are:

1. Emotion and expressiveness
2. Personalization
3. Adaptive for every screen
4. Accessible for every need

1. Emotion and expressiveness:

The main focus of Google here is not just to follow function which has been the major theme of the two formal generations but to introduce a more humanistic approach to the design. This approach makes a lot of emphasizes personal taste and preference. There is more focus on the visceral aspect of the design without trading off the behavioral or the functionality and accessibility of the system.

2. Adaptability for every screen:

Over the past decade, human-computer interaction has increased, technology is finding its way into a different aspect of our lives where they were not previously found, what this means is that people are interacting with this system or different interfaces that were not previously available. it is important to make the user experience consistent across different touchpoints for an optimal experience.

3. Accessibility

A big mistake to make is to think accessible is only for the people that are permanently disabled. Accessible design is beneficial to everyone. People’s accessibility need can vary from situational needs to permanent conditions. For instance, a dark theme might not well in the sun for a person with good vision (situational) which high contrast would be preferable for people with color blindness. The truth is we are all disabled in one way or the other, it would be very difficult to think of technology today without thinking of accessibility need. the new material design system capture this by providing control of contrast, size, and line width, with a system that is contextually aware.

4. Personalization:

This is my favorite because it allows people to create their world according to their interpretation. The material you also for high-level customization as it was demonstrated by Google. Users can personalize their experience with just an image they love. Color palettes are also automatically generated from these images.

The sociological perspective.

As technology is improving and the increase for advocacy of inclusion and diversity in tech, Brands like Google have realized the need for customization and personalization. It might be very difficult to capture the subjective interpretation of every culture when designing on a large scale, it is important to give people the tools to empower them to create their world according to their experience and interpretation. The importance of personal customization can not be overstated or emphasized. Although some might argue that humans are themself on a psychological level and our need and motivation are the same or similar to some extent. I fear that this agreement is not taking a holistic perspective to technology by leaving out the social and cultural layer. A good example would be the popular usage and interpretation of colors in psychology, as all normal human is subject to the emotion of fear which alerts us to the presence of danger, threat or harm, which can either be physical or psychological. The use of Red color is often associated with the alert, danger, or harm, which is generally accepted in the design industry but approaching the interpretation of Red color through the psychological lens only will blind fond us to other cultural interpretations of this color. A good example of the cultural interpretation of red color is the usage of red color in Asian culture. according to chinahighlights.com, Red represents fire and is the most popular color in China. It is also the national color representing happiness, beauty, vitality, good luck, success, and good fortune. Red is famously popular in relation to anything Chinese and is widely used during festivals and important events like weddings. An individual with a western-centric approach to design might think the red color is only associated with danger and warning.

How can we happy a holistic (socio-psychological) approach as a designer?

To use a very simple analogy, I would use the design of a simple button on a page. buttons are very important for users to be able to take an action and every UX designer at a point or the other has to decide how to style a button, should it be outlined or filled, should I use a red color for a negative action or green for positive action. Let say you are to design a confirmation of a delete action on a page, that prevents a user from mistakenly deleting a file and also helps them to review their action.

A psychological approach would be to highlight the negative/primary action in red and de-emphasize the secondary button. From a socio-psychological perspective, that might not be the best solution. if you have two action buttons, obviously they can’t look the same so that the primary action would be obvious, having them look the same would stress the user because it would take a lit bit of time to process the information in their brain, but do you need a red color for a negative action? The answer depends on the culture you are designing for. A red button for a negative action might work well in the west but not very well in Asia.

In conclusion, as a designer designing for a wide range of audiences, it is important to empower people to create and customize their experience according to their subjective interpretation of their world and I think Material you is heading in this direction