Goddamit, Gmail
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
Modern automatics might actually compensate for that use-case somehow, but I imagine it's hard for something under the hood of the car to know, "oh BTW you'll need to provide consistent braking power for the next 27 miles" with the sensors is has access to.
You might be able to do it with GPS and wireless, like what is starting to become rather more common in cars. (Also, brake systems have become a lot better; disk brakes seem to have far fewer problems than drum brakes.)But then what do I know; I drive a manual shift…
-
@Aeolun said:
Anyone whom dislikes this interface is taking too much trouble writing each email (you really don't need any more than this for most of your emails).
Anyone whom is unable to figure it out within the first 5 minutes of using it is either a retard, or just old.
@Lorne Kates said:
Godfuckingdamnit, Gmail. I didn't want to spend my afternoon writing ANOTHER Stylish userstyle to fix your fucking stupid UI decision to fuck up things that have been working and stable since the inception of webmail interfaces!
The conservatism is strong in this one.
Oh dear, I see you've discovered the "whom" entry in the dictionary, but perhaps you might want to hold off on using it until you actually know how.
"Whom" is the dative, not nominative form of "who" and cannot be a sentence subject. Commas do not go before "or", except when the "or" is the start of an embedded sentence and in various other cases, but not yours. Writing is in general supposed to be a more descriptive, less ambiguous form of communication than random grunts, or in your case regurgitated heap of grammar vomit, mostly due to having a higher latency until the other party vomits back.
-
@Mo6eB said:
thy and thine are the same word the difference is like between a and an
Actually, it's more like the difference between "your" and "yours". You wouldn't say "This quilt is thy".
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Perhaps, but it's not a pure Markov generator; some of the words in the translation are more-or-less correct, but some are really odd. I think it's mostly just that their Latin translation sucks. They do say, "This language is still in the early stages of development and not yet up to the same quality standards as our other languages." I completely believe this. According to them, the word "elit" may mean "employees," "competition," "customers," "investors" (ok, those are all kinda sorta vaguely related) or -- the prefered translation -- "Malaysia" (WTF?).I was curious whether this was gibberisn or real text, so I pasted it into Google Translate. That it turned out to be gibberish is not the least bit surprising. But some of the output gibberish appears to be utterly unrelated to the input gibberish. GIGO, but by what conceivable transform did Google extract words, proper nouns and phrases like "Chinese," "UK," "Japan," "television, film or video from the Internet," "Apple Business" and "Oklahoma" from that Latin or pseudo-Latin text? WTF?
It wouldn't surprise me if Google had set up translate to respond with a Markov generator when it's give some form of the Lorem Ipsum. That's the sort of thing that they'd do.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I dunno. Drag-and-drop worked for attachments before, and works for attachments now. Paperclip button? Welcome to 1994.
Drag-and-drop is one UI paradigm I almost never use - I find practically every other way of selecting/opening files faster than dragging them around.
The only thing I use drag-and-drop for lately is when "installing" beta upgrades of a few programs (which are shipped as an archive with files to replace in the installation directory; since no archiver that I use allows me to elevate on extract, it's simpler to drag the files to Explorer's view of target directory, and let Explorer elevate).
-
@El_Heffe said:
These are common in buses still.When I was in higschool a friend of mine had some sort of early 60's Plymouth with an automatic transmission that you shifted using buttons on the dashboard.
[snip]
I have no idea why they're not used in cars anymore seeing as they're all about making things easier with things like not needing to take the key out of your pocket to make it unlock and go etc.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Just looked it up myself (having driven nothing but a manual) - aren't those pretendy type selections to make it seem you're driving a manual instead of an automatic without going to the trouble of buying a car with a proper manually operated clutch? If you want that much choice, why not buy a manual to begin with and be done with it?Thank fuck auto manufactures aren't (always) designing UX like that. I mean, "99.9%" of people don't use D3, D2 and D1-- so let's engineer it away because it might confuse someone when they're trying to find "D".
I've never driven a car with D3 D2 D1. My car just has D. I had to look it up.
-
@da Doctah said:
@Mo6eB said:
thy and thine are the same word the difference is like between a and an
Actually, it's more like the difference between "your" and "yours". You wouldn't say "This quilt is thy".We are both right, actually, see Wikipedia on the declension of thou.
-
@PJH said:
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Just looked it up myself (having driven nothing but a manual) - aren't those pretendy type selections to make it seem you're driving a manual instead of an automatic without going to the trouble of buying a car with a proper manually operated clutch? If you want that much choice, why not buy a manual to begin with and be done with it?Thank fuck auto manufactures aren't (always) designing UX like that. I mean, "99.9%" of people don't use D3, D2 and D1-- so let's engineer it away because it might confuse someone when they're trying to find "D".
I've never driven a car with D3 D2 D1. My car just has D. I had to look it up.
Because if you have a manual clutch you need to finagle the car into motion without stalling by finding the biting point each time. It's much easier to just take your foot of the brake and step on the gas.
-
@ratchet freak said:
Because if you have a manual clutch you need to finagle the car into motion without stalling by finding the biting point each time.
This isn't a terribly difficult thing to do, and becomes second nature after you've been doing it a (short) while. Why is this seen as a problem by those who don't drive manuals?
-
@ratchet freak said:
@PJH said:
@joe.edwards said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Just looked it up myself (having driven nothing but a manual) - aren't those pretendy type selections to make it seem you're driving a manual instead of an automatic without going to the trouble of buying a car with a proper manually operated clutch? If you want that much choice, why not buy a manual to begin with and be done with it?Thank fuck auto manufactures aren't (always) designing UX like that. I mean, "99.9%" of people don't use D3, D2 and D1-- so let's engineer it away because it might confuse someone when they're trying to find "D".
I've never driven a car with D3 D2 D1. My car just has D. I had to look it up.
Because if you have a manual clutch you need to finagle the car into motion without stalling by finding the biting point each time. It's much easier to just take your foot of the brake and step on the gas.
In other words; an automatic is a convenience for people that don't want to bother with the intricacies of mastering the driving of a car or have tried and failed miserably.
A manual gearbox typically has less wear than an automatic, is far cheaper to replace when it does eventually gets worn too far (both due to less complex components involved in the gearbox) and when driving manually the driver will typically be able to better anticipate road and traffic conditions and shift gears to keep the engine RPM and output revolutions closer to optimal for both engine lifetime and fuel consumption. That's the price of convenience for you.
The various subcategories of the D setting do serve an actual function though; they block off the automatic transmission from using certain gears. It's similar to when a driver in a manual would decide to not shift into another gear and let the engine's RPM fall low or climb higher instead. It's typically bad for the engine and bad for fuel consumption when you sustain this for longer times, however it is also bad for the transmission to shift constantly. That means locking out certain gears can also be good a thing. E.g. when driving in a city a manual transmission with 5 gears would also typically not see its 4th gear being used all that much, because the driver would then constantly have to shift back to 3rd or 2nd for bends in the road or hitting the brakes and going back to 1st at traffic lights. Instead a driver can opt to stay in a lower gear for a bit longer and rev the engine a little higher. (Shifting into 5th is pretty much reserved for roads outside the city. You'd be nowhere near the optimal speed to switch to 5th when driving within city limits unless you were seriously breaking traffic regulations...)
It's still nowhere near what a manual transmission gives you, but this kind of control already helps an automatic transmission to substantially reduce wear due to shifiting and it helps improve the car's fuel consumption rates due to pegging the transmission down to a more optimal range of ratios between engine RPM and output RPM.
-
And yet I am sure that google will refuse to do google car with manual transmission. Come on, google, get your act together !
-
@Ragnax said:
A manual gearbox typically has less wear than an automatic, is far cheaper to replace when it does eventually gets worn too far (both due to less complex components involved in the gearbox) and when driving manually the driver will typically be able to better anticipate road and traffic conditions and shift gears to keep the engine RPM and output revolutions closer to optimal for both engine lifetime and fuel consumption.
I'm sure this was important in the dawn of the automatic transmission. Since you entered your time pod, however, transmissions have become much more durable, and regular drivers don't consider this factor because the odds are very low that it will matter.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Ragnax said:
A manual gearbox typically has less wear than an automatic, is far cheaper to replace when it does eventually gets worn too far (both due to less complex components involved in the gearbox) and when driving manually the driver will typically be able to better anticipate road and traffic conditions and shift gears to keep the engine RPM and output revolutions closer to optimal for both engine lifetime and fuel consumption.
I'm sure this was important in the dawn of the automatic transmission. Since you entered your time pod, however, transmissions have become much more durable, and regular drivers don't consider this factor because the odds are very low that it will matter.
It has become less relevant, that much is true, but it is still relevant: I've seen as high as a 10% difference in fuel economy when driven under real world conditions being cited. (Ofcourse curse my luck that I didn't bookmark the references to back that up.) One thing to note though; don't trust numbers published by organizations like the EPA. They apply by-the-book formulas to the cars' spec sheets and generally don't take the cars themselves out on the road for real testing.
-
@TheLazyHase said:
And yet I am sure that google will refuse to do google car with manual transmission. Come on, google, get your act together!
I approve of this comment.
-
@Ragnax said:
(Shifting into 5th is pretty much reserved for roads outside the city. You'd be nowhere near the optimal speed to switch to 5th when driving within city limits unless you were seriously breaking traffic regulations...)
TRWTF is there are cities without highways.
-
@joe.edwards said:
TRWTF is there are cities without highways.
It all depends on what you call a city. If your sole experience with “cities” is Nowhereville, South Dakota, you too might think that getting into a higher gear inside the city is hard.
-
@Mo6eB said:
...whom stuff...
Easy rule of thumb, that doesn't rely on non language scholars (e.g. virtually everyone) understanding nominative or dative:
If you wish to put who/whom in a sentence, try using he/him instead, then replace he with who, and him with whom.
So "he dislikes this interface" becomes "who dislikes this interface", since "him dislikes this interface" is wrong.
-
@eViLegion said:
@Mo6eB said:
Subject and object are elementary grammar. The subject acts, the object is acted upon (or is otherwise affected by the action). If it's the subject (the entity performing the verb) use who, if it's the object (an entity affected by the verb) use whom. In your example, it's "who dislikes this interface" because we have dislike, the verb, who, the subject who is disliking, and this interface, the object whom is disliked....whom stuff...
Easy rule of thumb, that doesn't rely on non language scholars (e.g. virtually everyone) understanding nominative or dative:
If you wish to put who/whom in a sentence, try using he/him instead, then replace he with who, and him with whom.
So "he dislikes this interface" becomes "who dislikes this interface", since "him dislikes this interface" is wrong.
Better to understand why it is correct than learn substitution tricks IMHO.
-
@Ragnax said:
A manual gearbox typically has less wear than an automatic,
Not true; you'll go through two clutches (yes, even if you're careful) in the time it takes one automatic transmission to fail. Of course you're probably weasel-wording this and are going to respond, "replacing the clutch isn't replacing the transmission!" which is technically correct, but practically makes no difference.
@Ragnax said:
is far cheaper to replace when it does eventually gets worn too far (both due to less complex components involved in the gearbox)
Also because it's a very common thing for auto shops to do because clutches wear out all the fucking time.
@Ragnax said:
and when driving manually the driver will typically be able to better anticipate road and traffic conditions and shift gears to keep the engine RPM and output revolutions closer to optimal for both engine lifetime and fuel consumption.
Hasn't been true for a decade.
@Ragnax said:
It's still nowhere near what a manual transmission gives you, but this kind of control already helps an automatic transmission to substantially reduce wear due to shifiting and it helps improve the car's fuel consumption rates due to pegging the transmission down to a more optimal range of ratios between engine RPM and output RPM.
Hasn't been true for a decade.
Protip: a lot of "car people" don't know anything about cars newer than 1988. So when you're on a "car people" forum, please keep that in mind... most of the "traditional wisdom" about automatics hasn't been true for decades.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Better to understand why it is correct than learn substitution tricks IMHO.
I agree, but not necessarily quicker to teach.
The substitution trick is a lot easier to both remember, and put into practice.
People already understand the words "he" and "him", and can make a small leap to understand the analogous "who" and "whom". Whereas it's harder to learn all of the technical terms related to grammar. I mean... the rule that I've set out makes no reference to the comparatively meaningless words like "genitive". (By meaningless, I mean if you say them to most people they'll just ignore you because you're effectively talking gobbledygook.)
If the people in question aren't really interested in understanding why but just want to use the words correctly (virtually everyone), then a simple rule is more appropriate.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Protip: a lot of "car people" don't know anything about cars newer than 1988. So when you're on a "car people" forum, please keep that in mind... most of the "traditional wisdom" about automatics hasn't been true for decades.
Except I know this from somone that spent most of his lifetime holding a job as chief after-sales for a car dealership before finally retiring some 5 odd years ago. Guess which type of transmissions broke down more often and earlier than the other? That's right; the automatic ones came back for repair in far larger numbers consistently over his years of work. Not just for that dealership either; car sales tends to be a bit of a small world, where everyone knows everyone so he had built up connections with people at other dealerships that did their fair bit of complaining about the problems with automatic transmissions as well. It extends all the way to the expensive end of the line of models from top brands such as Mercedes and Audi. One in particular stood out in memory though: Volkswagen's Direct-Shift Gearbox (DSG). Look it up on the net and read about the issues and recalls it has had. (This one came into use in 2003, btw. and is a modern dual clutch automatic transmission.)
One other thing to take into consideration as well: while automatic transmissions have certainly been advancing, so have manual transmissions. These are not your typical 'crash boxes' from the '60s anymore. Getting a good milage out of a clutch on a modern manual transmission is not at all a problem for a good driver that knows how to handle the clutch. Yes; if you're a moron that consistently abuses the clutch and makes the transmission groan, moan, grind and crash time and time again, then of course you'll end up wasting the equipment. That holds true for any high tech piece of machinery that a moron may abuse. But if you use it responsibly, then nowadays a manual clutch should pretty much last most if not all of the car's lifetime.
The bottom line is that current-day automatic transmissions suck less than they used to, but they still suck all the same when compared against current-day manual transmission.
-
@Ragnax said:
That's right; the automatic ones came back for repair in far larger numbers consistently over his years of work.
Dealerships sell more automatic than manual transmissions.
Next anecdote?
-
@Ragnax said:
The bottom line is that current-day automatic transmissions suck less than they used to, but they still suck all the same when compared against current-day manual transmission.
Even if I accepted your argument (I don't) about which break down more, I'd still say you're wrong, because the manual is much more of a PITA than the automatic with zero benefit to me.
-
@Ragnax said:
Except I know this from somone that spent most of his lifetime holding a job as chief after-sales for a car dealership before finally retiring some 5 odd years ago.
In the US? Meaning he sold 19 automatic cars for every one manual? And he was surprised he sees more automatics in the shop?
He's an idiot, and you're an idiot for listening to him.
@Ragnax said:
One other thing to take into consideration as well: while automatic transmissions have certainly been advancing, so have manual transmissions.
Not since the mid-80s. There's nowhere for them to go anyway.
@Ragnax said:
Getting a good milage out of a clutch on a modern manual transmission is not at all a problem for a good driver that knows how to handle the clutch.
Getting "a" good mileage out of a automatic is not at all a problem for any driver who knows how to breathe in and out.
@Ragnax said:
The bottom line is that current-day automatic transmissions suck less than they used to, but they still suck all the same when compared against current-day manual transmission.
You can buy whatever car you want, I don't care. But don't spread lies.
-
@Ragnax said:
and when driving manually the driver will typically be able to better anticipate road and traffic conditions and shift gears to keep the engine RPM and output revolutions closer to optimal for both engine lifetime and fuel consumption.
For a professional driver (NASCAR, etc) this is undoubtedly true. The average moron on the street . . . no.Transmissions (and cars in general) are like computers -- most people don't know as much as they think they do, and much of what they "know" is wrong.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Dealerships sell more automatic than manual transmissions.
Next anecdote?
@blakeyrat said:
In the US? Meaning he sold 19 automatic cars for every one manual? And he was surprised he sees more automatics in the shop?
No, this is in Europe, where it's pretty much the other way around as automatics are far outnumbered by manuals. If anything that makes the anecdotal evidence more compelling.
Still haven't looked up the issues surrounding the DSG either, have you blakey?
@blakeyrat said:
He's an idiot, and you're an idiot for listening to him.
I'll take the word of someone who spent a lifetime handling these things over the word of a random forum troll, thank you very much.
-
@Ragnax said:
(Shifting into 5th is pretty much reserved for roads outside the city. You'd be nowhere near the optimal speed to switch to 5th when driving within city limits unless you were seriously breaking traffic regulations...)
My last pickup truck had a manual transmission, and the slowest practical speed in 5th gear was around 30 mph. The annoying blinking shift indicator came on at 35 mph if it was in 4th.
-
@Ragnax said:
anecdotal evidence ... compelling.
ERROR: Does not compute
Stories like that are about as convincing as saying your dog told you so.
-
@mott555 said:
@Ragnax said:
(Shifting into 5th is pretty much reserved for roads outside the city. You'd be nowhere near the optimal speed to switch to 5th when driving within city limits unless you were seriously breaking traffic regulations...)
My last pickup truck had a manual transmission, and the slowest practical speed in 5th gear was around 30 mph. The annoying blinking shift indicator came on at 35 mph if it was in 4th.
For a 5 gear manual transmission, typically the speed to switch to fifth gear will be around 70kph, which translates to roughly 43.5mph for you US people. Does your pickup have a 5 gear manual transmission or does it have a 6th gear or higher?
@joe.edwards said:
@Ragnax said:
anecdotal evidence ... compelling.
ERROR: Does not compute
Stories like that are about as convincing as saying your dog told you so.
You conveniently left off the word 'more', I can make the claim that with the sales numbers slanted in favor of more manuals failing, the automatics still being turned in for repair more often makes it [i]more[/i] compelling than the other way around, because the odds would be against automatics failing more yet that would still be what actually happens.
Ofcourse it's still just anecdotal evidence. I never claimed to the contrary. Good luck finding anything that [i]isn't[/i] anecdotal evidence though. It's surprisingly hard to pull up any hard data, which is probably why the manual vs. automatic debate keeps on raging in the first place. (Maybe we need something like Google Analytics for cars here. Heh...)
-
@Ragnax said:
Still haven't looked up the issues surrounding the DSG either, have you blakey?
Was I supposed to?
@Ragnax said:
I'll take the word of someone who spent a lifetime handling these things over the word of a random forum troll, thank you very much.
I know a lot of people who have spent a lifetime working with computers and don't know shit about computers.
But like I said: buy what the fuck you want. Just don't lie about stuff.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Ragnax said:
It's a bit of an eye-opener case regarding the reliability of modern automatic transmissions.Still haven't looked up the issues surrounding the DSG either, have you blakey?
Was I supposed to?@blakeyrat said:
I know a lot of people who have spent a lifetime working with computers and don't know shit about computers.
Yeah, but in this case it amounts to remembering how many PCs vs how many Macs you've had to deal with. Does actual knowledge of those systems' individual hardware factor in to that? No; it doesn't. The actual diagnosis and repair work would be done by certified mechanics. (That type of certification is also serious business: it requires mechanics to follow periodic training and take classes on updated tech and they actually can and do flunk on that at times. It's not your typical dumbfuck IT training session where everyone can pass by just being present and taking a company-paid nap in the back of the room. Good god; if IT had proper mandatory certification and periodic re-evaluation, then this website probably wouldn't have existed in the form it does today...)
Meh. I'm growing tired of debating this though. Feels like we should all go back to the original discussion: Google's Gmail UI. I for one am of the sound opinion that the new compose UI does suck. Not only do I hate its ass-backwardness myself, but I've already had to explain its workings to some of my older family members twice over, since the new UI went completely over their heads. So if Google's goal was simplification to improve accessibility and promote ease of use, then I certainly judge the new UI to be a failure.
-
@Ragnax said:
@mott555 said:
@Ragnax said:
(Shifting into 5th is pretty much reserved for roads outside the city. You'd be nowhere near the optimal speed to switch to 5th when driving within city limits unless you were seriously breaking traffic regulations...)
My last pickup truck had a manual transmission, and the slowest practical speed in 5th gear was around 30 mph. The annoying blinking shift indicator came on at 35 mph if it was in 4th.
For a 5 gear manual transmission, typically the speed to switch to fifth gear will be around 70kph, which translates to roughly 43.5mph for you US people. Does your pickup have a 5 gear manual transmission or does it have a 6th gear or higher?
It was a half-ton Chevy with a 5-speed manual. I've never seen a stick-shift pickup with more than 5 gears. Most of the ones I've seen were actually 4-speeds. But to be fair, most of the manual pickups I've seen were older 4x4 models relegated to off-road farm use.
Pickup trucks are actually geared quite low. One of my former roommates had a somewhat sporty car with a 5-speed manual (I think it was a Chevy Cobalt) and once when I let him drive my truck he had trouble believing you could use 4th gear when you're only going 25 mph. Apparently on his car you didn't leave 3rd until you were in the 50's. He was a fake drama queen too (just his sense of humor) so I had a good time listening to him curse out the blinking shift light in my dashboard because "dammit I'm only going 40 why do I need to leave 2nd gear!"
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Fuck each and every single placeholder text that ever existed.
and the designers simply love that shit. at least the ones i have contact with.
my favourite thing is when i have to fill a form that uses placeholders and my browser prefills the fields with the data i have stored.
now if the browser guessed right every time i would be happy, but it does not.
and im too lazy to write a greasemonkey script that goes through all "placeholder" attributes and adds them as text to the parent label.
-
@Nelle said:
@Lorne Kates said:
Yes.Fuck each and every single placeholder text that ever existed.
and the designers simply love that shit. at least the ones i have contact with.
my favourite thing is when i have to fill a form that uses placeholders and my browser prefills the fields with the data i have stored. now if the browser guessed right every time i would be happy, but it does not.
and im too lazy to write a greasemonkey script that goes through all "placeholder" attributes and adds them as text to the parent label.And then there's the inconsistent behaviour. Sometimes clicking in the input element will clear the placeholder. Sometimes typing the first character will clear it.
So if you click in the input and it doesn't clear, has the script crashed? Is there just some lag before it clears? WHO KNOWS?
And that's not even counting if the "clever" designer remembered that keyboard navigation exists. What happens when you TAB into a form element? Depends-- did the designer even know what .focus() was? Oh no, they didn't so you have to manually erase the text. If you can. Maybe this is one of those SUPER clever ones that uses a floating SPAN rather than placeholder, and you can't clear it without clicking on it.
Or you tab in, but accidentally double tab and jump to the next element. You tab back-- and now BOTH the element you want and the next form element are now blank. Hope you remembered what each form field was called.
BONUS GMAIL WTF: Enter an email address. The "TO" remains. Tab to the next field. After a brief pause, the TO vanishes-- and your email address shifts to the left to take its place. Nothing says "not-annoying UI" like form elements that shift about as you enter data.
-
@El_Heffe said:
The average moron on the street . . . no.
It's all a matter of training. If you have to learn to use a manual shift to get your driving license — the situation here — you get a lot of practice in and become reasonably proficient. OK, technically you can learn on an automatic, but then you get a license where you can only drive unaccompanied in an automatic. Since manual shifts are cheaper due to being mechanically simpler, there's an economic incentive to learn a bit more. Once you've learned how to use a manual properly (mostly easy if you're not deaf; only hill starts are actively difficult) then it's pretty easy from there on; the only tricky bit is learning where the clutch bites on a new car, and you pick that up reliably within a day or so.In terms of wear and tear, I've yet to need to replace the gearbox on any car despite having owned both manuals and automatics.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
And then there's the inconsistent behaviour. Sometimes clicking in the input element will clear the placeholder. Sometimes typing the first character will clear it.
That's a difference in behavior due to divergent default behavior in browsers. You should not be mess with default browser behavior period, because it messes strongly with user expectation. The fact that designers deem it necessary to mess with with this kind of thing is why you should always have a UX specialist on board and why that should almost never be the same person as the designer.@Lorne Kates said:
And that's not even counting if the "clever" designer remembered that keyboard navigation exists. What happens when you TAB into a form element? Depends-- did the designer even know what .focus() was? Oh no, they didn't so you have to manually erase the text. If you can. Maybe this is one of those SUPER clever ones that uses a floating SPAN rather than placeholder, and you can't clear it without clicking on it.
And this is why your designers should not be your frontend engineers. A real frontend engineer won't download the first randomly discovered cobbled together jQuery plugins off the web that outwardly seems to fit the visual use case. A real frontend engineer will analyze how a polyfilling script works and will make a judgement call based on that.Or you tab in, but accidentally double tab and jump to the next element. You tab back-- and now BOTH the element you want and the next form element are now blank. Hope you remembered what each form field was called.
As some on this forum would say: fuck designers that think they can do HTML/CSS/JS.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Protip: a lot of "car people" don't know anything about cars newer than 1988. So when you're on a "car people" forum, please keep that in mind... most of the "traditional wisdom" about automatics hasn't been true for decades.
Analogous for programming/it forums?
Oh dear.
Wait, what about car talk on programming forums?
Oh dear.
-
@Ragnax said:
That's a difference in behavior due to divergent default behavior in browsers. You should not be mess with default browser behavior period, because it messes strongly with user expectation.
On the other hand, there is an entire industry of Javascript and CSS projects dedicated to doing the exact opposite - to force all browsers to actually be consistent. Sure it's a browser's prerogative to decide to use a custom CSS that renders <input> fields with a rounded border and 5px of empty space on either side (note: fictitious example), but then website designers need something like reset.css to maintain their sanity.
-
@Arnavion said:
@Ragnax said:
That's a difference in behavior due to divergent default behavior in browsers. You should not be mess with default browser behavior period, because it messes strongly with user expectation.
On the other hand, there is an entire industry of Javascript and CSS projects dedicated to doing the exact opposite - to force all browsers to actually be consistent. Sure it's a browser's prerogative to decide to use a custom CSS that renders <input> fields with a rounded border and 5px of empty space on either side (note: fictitious example), but then website designers need something like reset.css to maintain their sanity.
There's a difference between a presentational change that retains the feature's defining characteristics; e.g. , altering the border color or border radius of an input field, or a presentational change that breaks these defining characteristics; e.g, removing the border altogether. Changes that affect expected behavior; e.g. , how and when placeholder values show and hide themselves, are in a different league altogether and should always be considered very, very carefully.
Also reset.css is a very rough remedy. I'd favor normalize.css instead, which preserves default presentations and makes them more consistent across browsers by normalizing things like padding and margin, rather than wiping everything out like reset.css does.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
How in any fuck can you justify removing borders around input elements? An input textbox/textarea is a very, VERY standard and recognizable thing with a VERY distinct look and feel. It's UI as old as UI-- and I'm not even talking about GUI! Things look the way they do because they work, and EVERY FUCKING USER is used to it. Change for the sake of change is not innovative. It's just change.
+1. No, + a zillion
As a user, I'm tired of having to relearn UI every time a new release of some product comes out, simply because some PM somewhere decided "it has to change, and we'll justify it because some users somewhere didn't instantly figure out the old way".
As a UI designer/developer, I'm tired of having to fight with PM's and other developers about basic things, like "how do you represent a true/false value?" because the checkbox is "too old". Hint: it's old and mature and works REALLY WELL and has for DECADES!
-
@blakeyrat said:
I dunno. Drag-and-drop worked for attachments before, and works for attachments now. Paperclip button? Welcome to 1994.
What's wrong with using 1994 technology? If something worked then, why shouldn't it still work now?
Or here's a bizarre idea: offer both drag-and-drop *and* a button! Oh, wait, apps in 1994 were doing that too ...
-
@blakeyrat said:
change for the sake of change is not a bad thing, as long as it doesn't become worse.
What's your basis for this statement?
It's been my experience (backed up by things I've read that I can't point at immediately but could probably find if you need me to - some of Jakob Nielsen's work comes to mind, though) that an unchanging UI is better overall. For example, the arms, hands, and fingers develop muscle memory so that you can quickly and semi-consciously (unconsciously?) perform actions such as mousing to specific buttons or menus, or using keyboard shortcuts.
For me, at least, that couples with visual pattern recognition - I see a window/screen/page and, without consciously recognizing it, my hands do the right thing (such as a specific dialog that wants my address: type name tab type address tab type city tab type M 4 times to get to "MA" in the state dropdown tab type zip code control-enter, dialog closes)
If the controls change order, or buttons change behavior, or whatever, I have to struggle until my unconscious learns the new patterns. I'd call that a bad change, unless there's a compelling reason to make it.
One interesting thing here is that in the case I just described, the chrome that Lorne is complaining about Google's taking out of Gmail is actually not necessary for me. However, it doesn't harm me either, and as soon as they change the UI, or when I encounter a new screen/window/dialog/page/whatever, or if I'm a new user, that very same chrome is critical for my being able to use the product. So as he said in an earlier message, removing it is a poor choice all around for them, no matter which users they are catering to.
You said in an earlier message something to the effect that products need to move forward, and therefore change is good (I may be misrepresenting what you said, and if so I apologize). And I agree with you that change that moves a product forward is good. But that's not change for change's sake. So, I wonder - when you say that change solely for the sake of change is not a bad thing, do you really mean that (and if so, why)?
-
@dhromed said:
It's like we're back in the
Impressionist age of UI design1980's and early 1990's. Anything goes!FTFY
-
@RobFreundlich said:
If the controls change order, or buttons change behavior, or whatever, I have to struggle until my unconscious learns the new patterns. I'd call that a bad change, unless there's a compelling reason to make it.
You seem to be forgetting the "as long as it doesn't become worse" part of my sentence there. You even quoted it.
-
@RobFreundlich said:
@blakeyrat said:
Situation: you have on your clipboard the path to the file you want to attach. Maybe it came from a log file, maybe it was written in an email from one of your co-workers, whatever.I dunno. Drag-and-drop worked for attachments before, and works for attachments now. Paperclip button? Welcome to 1994.
Would you rather:
- open an explorer window
- paste the path and edit out the filename so you can navigate to the directory
- search for the file you want to annex to appear in the possibly-slow list of possibly-many files
- drag'n'drop it into your email;
- click the attach button
- paste the filepath
- press OK
Not as a contrived example as you might think.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@RobFreundlich said:
If the controls change order, or buttons change behavior, or whatever, I have to struggle until my unconscious learns the new patterns. I'd call that a bad change, unless there's a compelling reason to make it.
You seem to be forgetting the "as long as it doesn't become worse" part of my sentence there. You even quoted it.If change makes something better, then it's not change for change's sake. Possibly, it doesn't make things worse (maybe rounded vs sharp corners), but it seems like this must be something extremely trivial. Therefore you're an idiot or a troll.
-
Also, you may need to distinguish between simply attaching an image and embedding it in the message body.
-
@Zecc said:
Situation: you have on your clipboard the path to the file you want to attach. Maybe it came from a log file, maybe it was written in an email from one of your co-workers, whatever.
Then you use the Attach button, which still exists. Duh.
