Lollipop is out, though, of course, the only way to get it now is to buy a new device that supports it. And, according to Pogue, disappointment for people who like upgrading their OSes is only one of the ways that the new Android disappoints. It’s flat. Perhaps too flat, and guilty of a myriad of user experience sins. But it’s also chock full of new, improved, and useful features, many of which were cribbed from inspired by other platforms, like battery saver, do not disturb, new unlocking, phone to phone transfer, user accounts.
Whether it be Windows 8, Android, IOS 8, the flat look to me make it more difficult to see objects and just unappealing. Kind of like back to the 80’s where you didn’t have enough pallet colors to actually make something look three dimensional. The biggest thing that I am not a fan of in Android is scrolling through screens of tiles…and the screen of tiles is in any old order…and if you can’t find an app that is pinned to that screen then you have to jump to another screen of tiles that looks identical but may be in alphabetical order with even more apps to scroll through. Say what you want about Windows Phone 8, even being flat, the tiles have much more density and navigating apps is just a breeze compared to Android and even IOS. And white backgrounds are annoying and waste battery. It’s funny that do not disturb hours is already available on the other phone platforms and that multiple email programs are not needed on other phones. After owning 3 Samsungs, Android is really overrated.
Edited 2014-11-04 05:02 UTC
I bought a Lumia 630 to replace an aging Android 2.1 mobile I had lying around.
Although it is an entry level Windows Phone, it performs quite well, when comparing with the S3 and S4 that I carry everywhere.
Another example why it was time to ditch Dalvik.
Seriously? On the home screen i know exactly where all the pinned apps are because i placed the most used apps there grouped logically. (you do know you can ask google play to not automatically clutter your home screen with newly installed apps right?)
I am not much a fan of scrolling through a long list of apps in a tiled list either, or actually i don’t like scrolling too much sideways, or a complete page at a time, so i installed Nova Launcher so now it is a vertical alphabetical list that scroll smoothly and not in pages, fixed.
Here i agree totally, i by far prefer dark themed versions of almost all apps, i have a few apps where i actually use the accessibility feature to invert the colors when using them. (did the same when i had an iPhone)
So big deal that they get one feature later than the rest? For me the feature in iOS is too simple to be useful, not sure about the one in Lollipop yet, but at least it looks more configurable with the Interuptions, blocking the entire world except for a few select phone numbers just doesn’t work for me.
I actually love the 2 email programs thing, i use the GMail app for personal email and the other email app for work email, this way they are clearly seperated and have different notification sounds and icons. I much prefer this to having multiple accounts in one app like i did on the iPhone.
For me it just works, it might be less sexy than the competition, but it makes up for that with more features and being customizable.
According to Anandtech.com, GMail 5 allows you to set the sync frequency, notification frequency, and notification sound on a per-account basis. The only thing you can’t set pre-account is the colour of the LED for notifications.
That’s also the only reason I use separate e-mail programs for home/work. It just might be doable in a single program on Android 5.0.
Have either of you tried k9mail?
It allows for multiple accounts, from any provider, offers an extreme level of customisability on a per-account, per-folder or global level, supports GPG out of the box really easily, and has a very simple setup process despite all of its features.
After owning two Nexus, and now also a Samsung Note 10.1 2014 ed., I can assure you that most of the faults lie with Touchwiz.
You are not the only one that doesn’t like “flat UI.” I think it’s awful.
Early screenshots of Windows 95 displayed a pretty flat UI, and I was soooo disappointed when the actually product went out.
(Or maybe those were early Windows NT 4.0 screenshots; anyway I remember a very good looking almost flat UI, with red titlebars, being showed up in magazines.)
3D widgets can provide a nice hint about information layout and available interaction, but there’s often just too much of it in most GUIs.
There’s more noise than ‘hintness’ to them, and in the end, it goes against the original goal.
Controls just appear to have be designed as independent pieces, without much care for the big picture.
Well, screens are flat anyway, trying to make them look otherwise doesn’t really make sense.
Can you imagine a newspaper with 3D effects everywhere ?
How outstandingly annoying would that be ?
I always liked more a balanced mix of 3D for apps icons and almost flat for toolbar ones. Also almost flat for controls.
Too much 3D pollutes the interface but too much flatness just make them boring and hard to discern.
Try to explain by phone where someone should click on a totally flat interface. Bear the frustration.
It’s art, it’s fashion, it’s fad
Personally, I don’t care one bit about the flat icons. Then again, I’m not very picky either… I was happy with the 2.x UI
As for functionality, two of the features I missed most in iOS, do not disturb and lock screen notifications, I’m thrilled are now on Android. Yeah, I know you can get them in 3rd party apps/skins, but I appreciate having this stuff built into the stock ROM.
One thing I wish they’d add is some kind of Airdrop alternative, as transferring large files from PC to phone/tablet is still more of a pain in the ass than it should be. (And anyone who says ‘cloud’ is getting stabbed in the eye
Why the hell would I want to transfer a 1gb+ movie to the cloud, and then back down to the device? It’s absolutely pointless.) I read somewhere a couple of days ago that they’re rumored to be working on such a thing, which can’t come soon enough!
For you two moaners, XDA have the ROM you dream about. I tried 4.2 and 4.3 on my HTC Evo 3D, but returned to a nicely packaged 4.0.3 ROM with HTC Sense 4.5 with scrolling app list and black background, good battery life, etc. The magic of Android lies here : adaptability, when you have to wait for the right iOS or Winphone release.
Kochise
Androids battery life is still worse than the competition by a long shot on the same hardware.
I guess that’s largely due to the platform’s versatility.
Android apps are not compiled for a specific processor or architecture, but for a pretty high level VM.
AFAIK, ART is supposed to change this somewhat.
And then, there’s device manufacturers.
Some clearly do not put battery life high on their priority list, while some others (Sony, Huawei) have a pretty good track record on that front.
Actually, when you really pick up a device based on this, Android devices have the best battery life
(granted, with higher capacity batteries).
I’m eagerly awaiting my new Xperia Z3 Compact. No iOS or WP device can beat it.
Isn’t NFC that solution for almost everything? I have a 500 MB video on my Windows Phone, you have an Android phone, tap-to-share, a few minutes later you have a 500 MB video without needing any internet-sharing or “FTP”-app
I’m trying to get files from PC to phone/tablet, not from phone to phone.
USB cables are REALLY good for that. Just copy/paste is all that is needed and those 500 MB will be done in seconds, not minutes
That’s the whole point… I don’t wanna plug the damn thing in every time I need to transfer a file
Why do people keep saying Lollipop is flat? Lollipop is anything but flat. Every single element exists in a layered 3-dimensional space. Every single element is adorned with dynamically lit shadows to emphasize depth. Animations transition and motion between X, Y and Z axis. Even the most basic element, the Paper/Card, has a depth of 1dp. So where does this idea of flatness come from?
Journalists these days are just so lazy. All the information about Material Design is available online for all to see. Yet we have this author claiming that Lollipop is flat and that there are no shadows. Did he actually use Lollipop?
http://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/environment.html
http://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/material-propert…
http://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/objects-in-3d-sp…
Well … that’s all very nice … in theory.
But looking at the screenshots, i’d say … yes, it looks flat.
Screenshots don’t do it justice. You have to see it in action. It doesn’t feel or look flat when you use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDQ1z1-PvU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6cAr0O2-Pk
Still looks flat to me.
IN FACT: at 5:11 in the first video you posted, the guy says “The dialer is very material design-y, it’s super round, super flat”.
How’s it flat when everything is layered? Look at the notification area, the status bar, the app drawer, the floating action button, the shadows everywhere. Windows 8.1 is flat. Lollipop isn’t, but whatever.
OK, so …
Still looks flat to me.
It seems like you are trying very hard to prove something.
Testing your opinion against mine isn’t going to convince me.
IOS 8 is considered to be flat by pretty much everyone. It too has floating things. However, when i look at it, i think … looks flat to me.
I’m not convincing you of anything. There’s reality and then there’s what you want to believe. People also claimed HOLO was flat. I’ve presented the facts, what you do with it is your responsibility.
There’s reality and then there is what you believe.
I guess the majority of people must be wrong, and you must be right … because reality.
Even your “facts” agree with me.
“3D world
The material environment is a 3D space, which means all objects have x, y, and z dimensions. The z-axis is perpendicularly aligned to the plane of the display, with the positive z-axis extending towards the viewer. Every sheet of material occupies a single position along the z-axis and has a standard 1dp thickness.”
Source: http://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/environment.html…
“Light and shadow
Within the material environment, virtual lights illuminate the scene and allow objects to cast shadows. A key light creates directional shadows, while an ambient light creates consistent, soft shadows from all angles.
All shadows in the material environment are cast by these two light sources. Shadows are the absence of light resulting from the occlusion of these light sources by sheets of material at various positions along the z-axis.”
Source: http://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/environment.html…
What majority are you talking about. The designers and engineers at Google put in their official documentation of the design language that Material Design is NOT flat. If the author of the article spent more than 5 minutes doing his research, he’d realize that.
As i said, nice in theory.
Still looks flat, regardless of what you say.
And Like I said, there’s reality and then there’s what you choose to believe.
Funny guy.
Look around in this thread, no one is agreeing with you.
China is also a democracy … in theory.
Reality and the official documentation of Material Design agree with me. That’s good enough for me.
http://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introduction.html
Okay, buddy.
You are either stupid or stubornly idiot!
Please don’t hurt my feelings like that.
He is just trolling. There are essentially two ways to look at this:
1. What ‘Material’ as capable of.
2. How it has been used in some of the screen shots seen so far.
How flat something looks in this instance seems to be subjective.
But can take this argument further and note that all the user interfaces look flat since they are displayed on a screen which just displays as set of pixels on the flat surface and that will never change until holographic technology is available.
“Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”
Duplicate…
Edited 2014-11-04 20:14 UTC
… or is it?
O_o
Looks pretty flat to me too… sort of like the world. It isn’t flat… but it sure does look flat as I can’t see any curve of the surface.
Or like apple products, they are suppossed to be better, but I can’t see anything better about them.
Edited 2014-11-04 10:49 UTC
I looked at the videos and sure, there are lots of animations everywhere, but UI-elements themselves are really flat and the animations do not seem to bring them out in any way or form. You have text here, you have text there, nothing to indicate what parts of the text can be tapped on and what can’t and so you end up having to just tap everywhere and see if any of it can actually be interacted with at all; that *is* flat. That is also something I’ve complained about for a long time now with all the other flat designs.
Everything can be interacted with and provides feedback. That’s the point of material design. Animations are not an afterthought they are an integral part of the experience which teach you how to use and navigate the OS. Read the Material Design documentation for more. Or watch the concept material on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8TXgCzxEnw
I don’t see how anyone can call Lollipop flat when shadows and layers are clearly use everywhere.
As I said, I already read about it and I watched the Youtube-videos. None of that changes what I said. The animations are used to indicate when something is happening or as transitional effects; they do not help at all when things are at rest.
https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w500/61faa3c07a90ec41…
Look at that picture there? I don’t see shadows and layers anywhere. Can you point out where they are? No? Well, exactly; it is flat. Those shadows and layers, again, are only there when larger elements like whole windows or Google Now’s cards are in motion, but they are not used for stuff like this. The UI should pay more attention to bringing out which elements can be interacted with and which ones can’t.
right on
You’re not looking hard enough. But I can’t blame you that’s a horrible screenshot. The statusbar and action bar are layered and shadowed. All cards exist in their on plane in Lollipop. Here are better examples.
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
Do you see the shadows and layers now?
Edited 2014-11-04 09:35 UTC
None of those have anything to do with what I pointed at. Who fucking cares if statusbar or action bars are shadowed? That does not change the fact that the smaller UI-elements are not displayed so as to make it easy to tell which ones are interactive and which ones are not.
You seem to have a real hard time grasping the idea that large-scale UI-elements having shadows or being layered has nothing to do with the smaller UI-elements and does not aid in using those smaller elements in no way or form.
Every UI element is interactive. Every icon on the toolbar or action bar, is interactive. Why is that so hard to figure out? It takes a total of 10 seconds for the average person to figure that out. Are you really suggesting that people think the arrow or search icon on the toolbar is purely for decoration? How is it that people can figure out how to use icons on their favorite browser’s toolbar, even though they’re flat?
Oh, you think that only buttons and icons and toolbars and such are UI-elements and text labels aren’t. That’s cute. And naÃve. No wonder you aren’t grasping what I’m saying.
Jesus Christ!
Every UI element is interactive.
Yes, labels inside buttons and lists items are interactive.
Besides, any UI/UX of a view is a sum of its parts, that has nothing to do with the flatness of individual UI elements.
Thankfully, these UIs are design for human beings capable of exploring and learning, not lower animals.
You do understand that a label can exist outside of a button or other interactive element right?
The prime example here is buttons. They all look like plain text.
You keep pointing out these “layers”, but everyone else is talking about the content of the layers. Within a layer, everything looks flat.
If I draw a square on a piece of paper, that square is flat. It makes no difference that I can pick up the paper and see a shadow underneath, or that the world around the paper is 3-D. The scope of “flat” is limited to the paper.
There are different types of buttons on Android Lollipop and guidelines on how to use them based on context.
http://www.google.com/design/spec/components/buttons.html
Example of non-flat button.
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
Example of flat button.
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
Edited 2014-11-04 18:26 UTC
And, how are you supposed to know that, just by looking at it? That’s the problem with flat UIs … you don’t know until you click it!
Is that bit of text in the corner a label? A header? A button? A divider? Is it clickable or not?
You shouldn’t have to mash around onscreen trying to determine which items are clickable and which ones aren’t. You should be able to tell just by glancing at the screen.
This is what MS, Apple, and now Google have screwed up (along with information density issues, and colour issues).
UIs are supposed to be intuitive, not “click on everything until you figure out how it works”. If you have to spend 5 minutes pressing everything onscreen to figure out how things work, you’ve gone backward in usability.
How do we know that the flat icons on our toolbars in browsers are clickable? How do we know the icons on our desktops are clickable?
Are you confused by what is clickable in this example?
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
I don’t think anybody would be. Because humans are pretty intelligent and they can infer context.
Who are you gonna believe? Him, or your lying eyes?
You have to turn the whole interface 45 degrees around the y axis so that you can see all the layers and 3D goodness… or think like a developer.
You sure won’t see any depth thinking like a normal user.
Not really, the use of shadows is abundant in Lollipop. So elevations and layers are easy to tell apart, especially when using it, thanks to the animations.
Edited 2014-11-04 11:06 UTC
I don’t see any shadows
This guy needs lots of glow effects, gradients and some skeumorphic design here and there to be satisfied. He’s not hating flat design, he’s hating digital design.
This. This review is total shit. Material Design is all about layers, showing depth in a natural way using shadows and other elevations. Just read the damn guidelines. It’s all over.
What he’s really talking about is digital design vs skeumorphic design. Apple uses translucency for depth (if you have one of the newer devices that is). I like Material Design’s approach better.
Exactly, Windows Phone OS is Flat. I wouldn’t even call iOS8 completely flat since it’s also layered across the OS.
Android Lollipop, however, is not flat, since there are layers across the OS and even within apps. Even when you look at the new icons in Lollipop, they have light shadows which gives the OS a “lighter” feel. The shadows are not as aggressive as Kit Kat, but they’re still there.
And do you expect people who buy a mobile with this version of android to actually read all the material design specs???
Because I’m guessing unless they do it’s going be looking pretty flat for them too.
Edited 2014-11-04 10:55 UTC
I expect tech journalists to do their research. Is that too much to ask for? After all, part of their job is to educate and enlighten the general public.
Although, looking at this as a general statement, i am inclined to agree … i do think it’s only fair to say that, at least in this case, the research is irrelevant.
People thinks it looks flat, period.
What you are doing is akin to trying to convince people that the moon is made of green cheese, because someone wrote a book saying it is.
The whole interface looks flat, no matter how much documentation exists that says it isn’t.
When i (and most other people) look at android L, we see a flat interface, period.
Eh, you’re back?
People “thought” the earth was flat centuries ago too. When “most” people saw the earth centuries ago, all they saw was flat.
We can excuse those people though. They lacked enough evidence and knowledge to know better.
The question is, what are you going to believe in light of the evidence and facts presented to you? Are you going to adjust your thinking, or you going to dogmatically cling to what you “think” you know no matter what evidence is presented to you?
This is not about what you “think”, or “feel”, or “want to believe”. This is not a religious exercise. I have presented proof, not “opinions” or “feelings” or “beliefs”.
I can’t change the flawed nature of our human psyche. The need to be right no matter what. The need to win. The need to protect our ego. So, you’re welcome to “see”, “think”, “feel” or “believe” what you want.
Oh, brother …
It looks flat!
You behave just like the church back then, ignore the truth, keep clinging to your beliefs.
“The question is, what are you going to believe in light of the evidence and facts presented to you?”
Like screenshots and videos? I saw them. Looks flat to me. What proof… Show me the shadows… show me the depth…this isn’t about what you think and feel.
“I can’t change the flawed nature of our human psyche. The need to be right no matter what. The need to win. The need to protect our ego. So, you’re welcome to “see”, “think”, “feel” or “believe” what you want.”
Sounds like you are talking about yourself there!
Examples of shadows, layers and depth in Lollipop.
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
http://developer.android.com/images/android-5.0/notifications/AntiS…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_4…
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_S…
I don’t see any shadows or layers
Really?
You don’t see the search box, floating action button and lower panels have shadows and exist in their own layer?
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
—
You don’t see shadows beneath the toolbar and the shadows around buttons which show depth?
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
—
The shadows around that dialog box must be imaginary. You don’t see both the dialog box and floating action button exist on different layers and depths?
http://material-design.storage.googleapis.com/publish/v_1/quantumex…
—
You don’t see the notification center is layered over the home screen? You don’t see the shadows beneath the top panel of the notification area and the light shadows around each notification card?
http://developer.android.com/images/android-5.0/notifications/AntiS…
—
The apps overview is a 3-dimensional roller deck carousel. Flat, right? You don’t see how each app is represented as a 3-dimensional card (1dp deep) layered above each other? How do you create these effects without layers, depth and shadows? Please tell me.
http://cdn.androidpolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nexus2cee_4…
Edited 2014-11-04 21:52 UTC
looks flat and I don’t see any shadows
I see I’m wasting my time. You’re too emotional, miserable and butthurt to be reasoned with.
You have failed with your Ad hominem attacks… how pathetic you are.
I’m not emotional, or miserable… looking at what you posted on the subject and how aggressive you are, I’d say you are describing yourself.
I can imagine someone like you doesn’t have many friends and spends 24/7 on a computer… thus you can’t believe people may have problems with material because you can only ask yourself your opionion and no one elses.
*sad*
I don’t understand. The guy is describing his firsthand experience with Android 5.
He is entitled to write that it is ‘flat’, ‘white’, ‘sans serif’ or anything else without having to read the UI guidelines.
Actually, nobody cares about Android UI guidelines but Google employees.
There is no UI consistency between applications : Each ones rolls its own style.
I would rather have a skinnable UI for the OS (something Linux environments have had for ages, it should not be that complex !) than that.
I’m not a tech Journalist, it looks flat to me, and no I’M not going to read the material specs
Sure, but Google’s intent to make it ‘not flat’ does not come across to people using the phones. If I use it, and it feels ‘flat’, then it’s flat, regardless of Google’s design language.
Both camps are right :
– OK, every element is layered and do cast shadow on things below them
– BUT every element, taken separately, is indeed flat (there’s no texture, gradient or inner shadow on buttons)
‘Pure’ flat design is IMHO confusing.
I do prefer the look I see on Polymer project / android material apps, but I also agree that adding some depth to some UI elements could help.
Edited 2014-11-04 10:47 UTC
Not all buttons in Material Design are flat. The type of buttons to use and when depends on context. These are discussed in the guidelines.
http://www.google.com/design/spec/components/buttons.html#
I don’t get it : a flat button that cast a shadow is indeed a flat button !
And in none of the the examples you linked, I can see :
– texture
– inner shadow
– gradient
The inside of the buttons are totally flat.
Android UI elements have typically never used gradients and textures, at least not since Ice Cream Sandwich. Outside iconography and games, gradients and textures do not make sense in UI elements anyway since they’ll incur significant processing power.
Flat design is the absence of depth, layers or 3-dimensional elements. Digital print, or most web pages, are examples of flat design.
While Material Design uses the “Paper and Ink” metaphor, each “Paper” element still has depth, can exist on different Z-axis planes, and can move around in a 3-dimensional environment. This is where Lollipop shatters all the principles of Flat design.
Metro (Modern UI) in Windows is an example of Flat design.
http://mysapgw.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/metro2.png
http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/60/23/012189/dynamicsprojectapp…
http://windowsitpro.com/site-files/windowsitpro.com/files/archive/w…
http://i.msdn.microsoft.com/dynimg/IC571332.png
Gradients, texture and inner shadow are still lightly used in Material Design iconography. They’re just not as aggressive to the point where things look skeuomorphic. Skeuomorphism has never been a thing on Android anyway, at least not since Ice Cream Sandwich.
—
GMail icon in Lollipop uses gradients and inner shadow lightly.
http://www.google.com/design/spec/style/icons.html#icons-product-ic…
The review, not the OS. Apparently little or no research was done for this article. It’s far more misinformation than information. Sad, because I generally respect David Pogue’s work.
Material design is like a box of chocolates… you never know what you going to get, and what is clickable…. BECAUSE IT’S ALL BLOODY FLAT WITH NO SHADOWS no matter what the specs say.
Just a heads up.
Some guy is going to come here with a bunch of links and tell you you are >>>WRONG<<<
It’s all obvious what is clickable, from context.
Google explicitly outline that if the context does not make it obvious that an element is clickable, it should be using a bordered button.
You use the web, right? See the title bar on OSNews?
You know you can click on those links, because context dictates they’re for navigation.
Gradients and bevels are crutches for applications whose UIs are overly full, or poorly designed.
In well laid-out applications, it’s obvious what is clickable and what isn’t because it will be a different colour, set apart from the rest, labelled with an icon or text that indicates it’s an action.
Flat design is infinitely more aesthetically pleasing, and now that we actually care about UX, we don’t need crutches like bevels to indicate clickable elements.
Edited 2014-11-05 11:56 UTC
> It’s all obvious what is clickable, from context.
Not for me… or most other users.
Flat fad fail.
That is all.
It amazes me how often Apple loyalists forget to mention just how far behind iOS is in regards to features like; multitasking, multi-user, inter app communication, etc. Than there are things like not being able to select you default browser, email client, chat client, etc. or the lack of a built in file manager, lack of support for a Bluetooth mouse, lack of support for a USB storage stick when used in conjunction with Apple’s Camera Kit, how about not seeing your files in the file explorer or Finder when an iOS device is connected to your computer. Android might have it’s faults but the way Apple has locked down iOS is an insult to users. Without JailBreak iOS would be useless in my opinion.
Edited 2014-11-05 20:33 UTC
Speaking strictly in terms of aesthetics, I don’t like flat-looking UI’s. I prefer a little bit of eye candy the same way I prefer the wood grain trim & steering wheel in my vehicles. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a little luxury, especially if it provides a better experience for the user.