>Basic proper usage of <h1>, <h2>, and <article> tags are nowhere to be found, making screen reader's job difficult (in fairness, however, accessibility has always been complicated).
I've asked here before about HTML5 semantic tags[1], and the consensus seems to be they're worthless. H tags may be useful, but HTML5 sectioning algorithm allow for multiple H1's for example seems to be generally seen as an error. There are so many valid users for <article> that it can't be used to find the actual article on the page. And the best use case of <section>, in my opinion, is a section without a heading, the exact sort of thing that nobody wants to allow and will tell you to just a div instead despite the fact divs don't have a label tag for them different from <figure> (also used wrong all the time) and <table>.
>It gets you from 0 to 97% in an instant
Exactly. Front end frameworks can't have ruined the web, because without them, there is no web.
If Wordpress runs over half the web and we get rid of it because it's shitty and buggy, we're getting rid of half the web.
The alternative to no <a> isn't <a>, it's nothing. Websites that aren't accessible to everyone are still accessible to some people at least.
>using ENV variables instead of putting them in a file
Thanks for reminding me. It didn't even cross my mind this was a bad practice since I have define( 'DB_HOST', 'localhost' ); on mine!
> Exactly. Front end frameworks can't have ruined the web, because without them, there is no web.
What does this mean exactly? We had the web long before we had frontend frameworks and there are still plenty of sites today that run without a frontend framework doing all the rendering.
This means that there is only something to complain about because it exists.
If React devs who don't know HTML had spent their time learning HTML instead of making React websites, we wouldn't have as many websites in first place to complain about them.
That's very interesting, specially that telemetry is being used to justify removing interface items. In my opinion the address bar is so incredibly large you could put 10 buttons in there and you would still have space, so I can't imagine a reason to bother removing things besides wanting to remove everything until there is nothing you can remove left.
You seem to be knowledgeable about UI/UX. May I ask you a question? I have a theory that monochrome icons are worse than colored icons. Do you know if there are studies about this or if there's any consensus? Thanks in advance.
In the middle of the article, there is a brief discussion about icons and colors.
I also think that well-coordinated color icons are good for readability and usability.
However, it is difficult to apply it universally to support a variety of colors. If it is similar to the background color, it is difficult to distinguish and there may be contrast issues depending on the light/dark theme.
I think it's just the ease of development of a solid color icon that matches the color of the text.
Oh, I missed that. It's satisfying to see what I assumed to be true to be laid out so concretely as data points.
I just wish it was something more 3D and "skeuomorphic" instead of just making a flat gray arrow into a flat green arrow. For example, if Chrome used a yellow star instead of a white star outline, I bet a lot of people would say it looks ugly as hell and sticks out like a sore thumb, but I'd prefer it. I can barely tell these monochrome icons apart.
> the address bar is so incredibly large you could put 10 buttons in there and you would still have space, so I can't imagine a reason to bother removing things
Space isn't the only issue. Fewer options generally (very generally) yields better design - it's easier to find things, less distraction, cleaner, etc.
Yes, after all, with 1 dollar RPM, 1 user paying 10 dollars a month in a subscription is worth 10 thousand hits in ads. In other words, you can piss off 9,999 people, that last 1 guy will make it all worth it.
I think there would be no "long run" for Feedly if people didn't buy Feedly Pro.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about dark UX when it comes to ads. The only good UX for ads is no ads, so there is no way to ever have a concession between an ad-supported business model and users who feel entitled to free internet stuff.
Think of it another way: someone who doesn't think your product is worth 6 dollars a month is going to be mildly annoyed by all the ads you placed.
Your positioning it as "entitlement" is gross. Expose yourself to "ads" that are intrusive and tracking you, deliberately deceptive to drive clicks, spread lies and bigotry because nobody curates the content, and sometimes malware vectors if you want, but it doesn't make you morally superior, it makes you stupid.
Do tell me, what are these incredible ads that users would be okay with seeing?
These incredible ads that make money to the company paying for the ads, so they must be visible, yet somehow not intrusive.
These incredible ads that are always relevant, thus never annoying, despite the fact nobody is going to buy 1 chair for every time they see an ad about chairs, and they will see 1000 ads for every 1000 pages they visit.
Do tell me what are these magical ads that people wouldn't have a problem with.
Because I'll tell you: even if such amazing ads existed, people STILL would feel entitled to getting free content without the ads!
It's just how it is. Users will never be okay with ads because ads will ALWAYS be bad UX. If you think it's possible to make good UX ads, you will revolutionize the marketing world. People who stand around distributing pamphlets will be thrilled to learn how they can hand people pamphlets and spread a message without being obnoxious and handing it to the right person 100% of the time instead of handing it to 1000 people and getting it right only once.
Reminds me of micromachines. I'm not used to PICO games, but I'd expected enter to mean activate instead of bring menu, like "start" would in a console. That menu confused me a bit because it said "continue" as if I were already playing the game.
I wish "reuse" had more focus than "recycle" since it's so much more feasible. You don't need science to do reuse. You just need logistics.
For example, if more people bought used goods instead of brand new ones, less goods would need be produced in first place, which would be great for humanity in general.
And “reduce” should get even more focus than that. People don’t need most of the garbage they buy. Of course, that would be bad for the economy, so we don’t talk about that anymore.
Anything reused or recycled will at some point become waste, but if it isn’t produced in the first place, that’s ideal. It obviously won’t work for everything, but it can work for a significant amount of things. The entirety of Temu and Shein would be a good start.
I've asked here before about HTML5 semantic tags[1], and the consensus seems to be they're worthless. H tags may be useful, but HTML5 sectioning algorithm allow for multiple H1's for example seems to be generally seen as an error. There are so many valid users for <article> that it can't be used to find the actual article on the page. And the best use case of <section>, in my opinion, is a section without a heading, the exact sort of thing that nobody wants to allow and will tell you to just a div instead despite the fact divs don't have a label tag for them different from <figure> (also used wrong all the time) and <table>.
>It gets you from 0 to 97% in an instant
Exactly. Front end frameworks can't have ruined the web, because without them, there is no web.
If Wordpress runs over half the web and we get rid of it because it's shitty and buggy, we're getting rid of half the web.
The alternative to no <a> isn't <a>, it's nothing. Websites that aren't accessible to everyone are still accessible to some people at least.
>using ENV variables instead of putting them in a file
Thanks for reminding me. It didn't even cross my mind this was a bad practice since I have define( 'DB_HOST', 'localhost' ); on mine!
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38521579