From Works in Progress, a media company promoting economic growth.
I'm sure a credible argument could be made in the opposite direction with a different case study - i.e. celebrating their own identity even if it bemuses international markets / imperialists (Japan and manga/anime for example).
Of course, it's an interesting study, but do all remember to resist the temptation to take too much from it!
I'm not convinced that your assumption that they are a very small portion of the population holds up, but I only have the same anecdotal evidence you likely have.
I find it hard to believe that people who would like to seek care but are unable to do so because of limits on their existing coverage would say that they are satisfied with their medical insurance.
Gruber is not much of a details man - he helped invent Markdown (to be lauded) but ghosted its standardisation. I would be fascinated to hear Prod John MacFarlane of UC Berkeley's opinion on it all given he was heavily involved in the push to get Markdown standardised.
This point would be far more credible if browsers weren't in business to do what you claimed extensions are there to do.
I'd also argue that creating a full browser without a profit motive is more unrealistic than creating an extension and uploading it - for free - to a web store.
Right, basically no web browser has a profitable business model except through licensing or being subsidized through some other branch of the business.
The best pure browser company in history was Opera, and they didn't fail because they weren't innovating. It is simply not a survivable model. People don't remember anything, but during Google's recent anti trust case, one floated "solution" was to spin Chrome off as a separate company, but that was regarded as unrealistic partly because such a company would not have a credible path to profitability separate from Google.
I happen to disagree, they could have collected a search licensing fee just like Firefox but that model is already being regarded as monopoly adjacent.
Thanks, that's good info. I found this thread from an ex Opera employee and to your point, they could have kept on with Presto, but didn't [1]. What remains true is that bad management chased profits and found a better path to more revenue by caving to webkit and Chromium. So it wasn't strictly unsustainable so much as outcompeted by better economics that came from abandoning Presto. I consider the soul of Opera to be gone at this point and the amount of personal integrity and vision it takes to swim against the current of short term revenue is another manifestation of unfavourable browser economics for sustaining an independent engine.
I mean they have a healthy dollop of US VC private investment, so good guys is off the cards - but in relative terms, they seem to follow the law, which in Silicon Valley is certainly not a given.
In general, we only really notice the animations that go wrong, like the ones that are too slow or get in the way, but when executed by the book (like the numbers material design published, or perhaps even slightly faster), they are a valuable way of communicating intuition for how to use the UI to a user.
But yes, I can understand the desire to remove them, or at minimum drastically reduce their visual impact for e-ink
Did I stutter? I would like them all gone. I would like all visual elements to appear exactly in their final position and not resize, except in direct response to user interaction.
Animations are one of the things that I dread about using modern UIs. There are others too, no doubt.
I always turn off Android's animations in the developer settings and it makes everything so much more usable. (Animation Scale: 0x, I believe is the setting)
> In general, we only really notice the animations that go wrong, like the ones that are too slow or get in the way, but when executed by the book (like the numbers material design published, or perhaps even slightly faster), they are a valuable way of communicating intuition for how to use the UI to a user.
No, they are not. And the Material Design 3 is the prime example of how NOT to do the UI.
It was optimized for such metrics as "rebelliousness" and "being in the know", rather than usability.
I'm firmly on Android because at least I can turn off all the animations there. I develop for iOS, and it always feels like swimming through molasses in comparison.
The only animations that make sense are small ones that are focused in the foveal area. So pretty much only animated button presses.
Tailwind didn't happen by chance - it was the culmination of many other failed philosophies for addressing a problem with CSS when it gets large.
Centrally the problem is this: large CSS requires a lot of active effort to prevent it becoming spaghetti code.
Writing your own CSS can work in solo projects or small projects but Tailwind was designed for large projects, teams and developers with an irrational fear of CSS.
I'm sure a credible argument could be made in the opposite direction with a different case study - i.e. celebrating their own identity even if it bemuses international markets / imperialists (Japan and manga/anime for example).
Of course, it's an interesting study, but do all remember to resist the temptation to take too much from it!