4 ms·
I didn’t downvote because I can agree to a certain extent. Are you suggesting a completely unstyled web or something? Maybe if you fleshed out that idea you wou
by corytheboyd 6y ago
I didn’t downvote because I can agree to a certain extent. Are you suggesting a completely unstyled web or something? Maybe if you fleshed out that idea you would be met with less criticism.
There is a good lesson here though, native browser controls should ALWAYS be your first consideration when building UI for the web. Try everything under the sun to stick as close to these as possible before you give up. You will thank yourself for having less code in which something can break. Your users will thank you for already knowing how to use the controls.
An example that drives me crazy is when dropdowns that could have been a select/option group of controls are not. Because most of the time the subtle but insanely helpful keyboard controls are completely missing. Being able to type with the menu selected to jump to items is insanely helpful when the creator insists on jamming too many options into it. Think about that, it’s not exactly trivial to implement, and by the time you have the dozens of lines of JavaScript to implement it correctly... pretty hard not to ask yourself “what the hell am I doing...”
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoDropdowns are frustrating because the select/option is only really good for simple cases and browsers block restyling: as soon as you get a requirement like “Dropdown with multiselect”, you have to rewrite the whole thing: and, for visual consistency, this usually means rewriting all the dropdowns.
- ddevault 6y ago"Dropdown with multiselect" is addressed by adding the "multiple" attribute to your select tag. Which has been possible since the 90's.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoNope, per MDN: > When multiple is specified, most browsers will show a scrolling list box instead of a single line dropdown. This is not “dropdown with multiselect” because it doesn’t “drop down”
- ddevault 6y agoTough shit? It does what you want. It doesn't have to look like what you want.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoIt doesn’t do “what I want”, it’s completely unsuitable for most of the use cases I’ve run into. Additionally, this sort of response will never work with a product manager or ux designer.
- ddevault 6y agoIt's your job as the engineer to tell the product manager or UX designer "no" when they ask you to build interfaces which lock disabled users out of the product. Take some responsibility for the code you write. And if you really cannot use <select multiple>, then have the discipline to read the AIRA guidelines and make sure that whatever you come up with works for everyone.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoNot really, the point of having these people is for them to make product and ux decisions. It’s my job to implement the use case they come up with (or quit): I can provide technical advice and suggest easier/better ways to solve their problems but, ultimately, it’s their call.
- ddevault 6y agoThat's a really shitty way to think about your job. If you don't have the courage to advise your peers (which is what the product manager and UX designer are, your peers), then you aren't worth your salary as an engineer. Thinking for yourself and pushing back against bad designs is part of your job. Do your job.
- mwcampbell 6y agoYour extreme stance is not helping the cause. I recognize, for instance, that the HTML select element, with its current limitations, is unsuitable for some real-world use cases. We shouldn't tell application developers that they're wrong to need something more complex than what the NCSA Mosaic team (edit: or maybe Netscape) defined in the 90s. We need to meet developers where they are and make it as easy as possible for them to do the right thing.