Hacker News Reader

Comment by YoshiRulz | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure Google's Material 3 """designers""" will make use of the built-in colour mixing if it reduces payload size.

I had the opposite thought -- I bet the new color mixing will increase payload size. Which of these would you rather send over the wire?

  A) color-mix(in srgb, var(--primary-color), white 50%)
  B) #abcdef

For me to give up scss, there needs to be a minifier that calculates colors ahead of time and emits them plain, the way scss does. (Maybe there already is, who knows)

Difference might well be a lot less than you think after compression. XML(like) things compress almost embarrassingly well.

postcss already does this https://preset-env.cssdb.org/blog/postcss-color-mix-function...

That will make zero difference to site performance. If I didn't have uBlock running, half the sites on the Internet have 100MB+ payloads now. You could save more than those 50 compressed bytes of text by just optimizing one image on your site :)

I beat myself up about performance issues like that all the time and have to catch myself to go do something more useful instead.

What is """"designers""""? I think MD3 looks pretty good compared to googles earlier attempts...

Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I feel like the initial "material" concept—UI components being like stacked paper—was better realised in 1 (and 2) than in 3. It wasn't the first minimalist design framework, but the spec was notably thorough in a way the new one isn't. I also preferred the barely-rounded corners and standardised colour palettes, but that's more a matter of taste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com