4 ms·

A simple screenshot of how this looks like would be fine.

by hdhzy 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago
Representing the multiple states, animations, colors, hover actions and myriad other ways things can be styles with a simple screenshot isn't necessarily simple. Not representing that info doesn't make for good examples or demos.
- prophesi 10y ago
  Animated GIFs that showcase the functionality would suffice, and are almost as simple as taking a screenshot these days. You don't need to record every nook and cranny of the toolkit; just enough to get the gist of the look and feel.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Animated GIFs that showcase the functionality would suffice Suffice, yes. And yet they are clearly inferior to actually using the widget as it would be used, so why sacrifice that? In the name of possible users that refuse to use Chrome? I think the number of people that are actually interested in this that do not have a version of Chrome handy already install that they can use and are unwilling to install it to see the functionality of a tool that relies on the functionality of a core component of Chrome is very small. So small, in fact I would be interested to hear from someone that was actually put off from viewing this that was actually in the market to make an Electron app.
    - prophesi 10y ago
      I guess you could say I'm in the market to make an Electron app; I currently use the Quasar framework since I already use Vue, but I was interested to see how Xel does things in comparison and if it has Vue interoperability. If I hadn't seen this comment thread, I would've went about my business to never give Xel a shot, because I'm on a low-end machine currently that takes forever to boot up Chrome, or any modern browser for that matter. Though, I'm also a proponent of writing accessible sites/apps that don't break when javascript's disabled, so this sort of "you need x to view y" grinds my gears. TL;DR: I'm definitely in the minority but it'd still be nice to have screenies Sidenote: To those who use angular/react/vue: add a prerender to your buildscript to fallback to a static site for js-disabled folk. It can even wait for database calls, so dynamic content can still be shown. I personally use this one for Vue: https://www.npmjs.com/package/prerender-spa-plugin https://www.npmjs.com/package/prerender-spa-plugin
      - kbenson 10y ago
        I asked, and you delivered. :) > I'm definitely in the minority but it'd still be nice to have screenies Which is fine, and I'm not arguing it's better to not have them, just that when it comes to the set of cases where it's okay to require a specific browser version, this pretty much fits the bill for me. Anything else is more work than using the actual widgets in examples, so that's what appears to have been done (and (one of?) the authors is on record here as saying they are planning to a add more later). I just think "Well frankly F off" is a bit extreme given the actual specifics of the situation. People have a tendency to shift outrage from one item to another using false equivalencies (a website targeting general users doing this would be a different story), and I think that's worth calling out when I notice it.

A simple screenshot of how this looks like would be fine.

by hdhzy 10y ago

A simple screenshot of how this looks like would be fine.

Representing the multiple states, animations, colors, hover actions and myriad other ways things can be styles with a simple screenshot isn't necessarily simple. Not representing that info doesn't make for good examples or demos.

prophesi 10y ago
Animated GIFs that showcase the functionality would suffice, and are almost as simple as taking a screenshot these days. You don't need to record every nook and cranny of the toolkit; just enough to get the gist of the look and feel.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Animated GIFs that showcase the functionality would suffice Suffice, yes. And yet they are clearly inferior to actually using the widget as it would be used, so why sacrifice that? In the name of possible users that refuse to use Chrome? I think the number of people that are actually interested in this that do not have a version of Chrome handy already install that they can use and are unwilling to install it to see the functionality of a tool that relies on the functionality of a core component of Chrome is very small. So small, in fact I would be interested to hear from someone that was actually put off from viewing this that was actually in the market to make an Electron app.
  - prophesi 10y ago
    I guess you could say I'm in the market to make an Electron app; I currently use the Quasar framework since I already use Vue, but I was interested to see how Xel does things in comparison and if it has Vue interoperability. If I hadn't seen this comment thread, I would've went about my business to never give Xel a shot, because I'm on a low-end machine currently that takes forever to boot up Chrome, or any modern browser for that matter. Though, I'm also a proponent of writing accessible sites/apps that don't break when javascript's disabled, so this sort of "you need x to view y" grinds my gears. TL;DR: I'm definitely in the minority but it'd still be nice to have screenies Sidenote: To those who use angular/react/vue: add a prerender to your buildscript to fallback to a static site for js-disabled folk. It can even wait for database calls, so dynamic content can still be shown. I personally use this one for Vue: https://www.npmjs.com/package/prerender-spa-plugin https://www.npmjs.com/package/prerender-spa-plugin
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I asked, and you delivered. :) > I'm definitely in the minority but it'd still be nice to have screenies Which is fine, and I'm not arguing it's better to not have them, just that when it comes to the set of cases where it's okay to require a specific browser version, this pretty much fits the bill for me. Anything else is more work than using the actual widgets in examples, so that's what appears to have been done (and (one of?) the authors is on record here as saying they are planning to a add more later). I just think "Well frankly F off" is a bit extreme given the actual specifics of the situation. People have a tendency to shift outrage from one item to another using false equivalencies (a website targeting general users doing this would be a different story), and I think that's worth calling out when I notice it.