3 ms·

It would be great if browsers implemented other common elements such as sortable data tables, carousels, etc. https://open-ui.org/ https://open-ui.org/

by pier25 6y ago

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
You have a great point. Browser UI elements are stuck in time and all the attention now is directed to things that Google can make money from (e.g. DRM, sandbox for rich apps/extensions, webrtc for their video call products, etc) but your cited site is not a good advocacy of that. Not even the most exalted UI framework fix the most obvious problems with those either. e.g. tables still won't hold the header and first column(s) while scrolling. Most of the these elements does not help consuming information, like carousels. And any true UX designer abhor them all for the fallacy they are.
- kuschku 6y ago
  > e.g. tables still won't hold the header and first column(s) while scrolling. https://caniuse.com/css-sticky https://caniuse.com/css-sticky position:sticky works on tables.
  - gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
    It's all red :( No support anywhere but Firefox. In fact, I will now use this URL as my main argument in support of firefox! even the grand-parent, javascript infused solutions, only two out of 20 support this extremely basic and obvious use case. Web UI standards are a joke. Everyone involved only cares about rich ads and accordions/carrousels which are lame ways to shove lots of content in a badly designed space.
    - kuschku 6y ago
      Why? The yellow/striped fields mean it's still supported (as long as you add it to th instead of thead/tr):
deergomoo 6y ago
This is the issue. People (especially on HN) complain about people building un-semantic, inaccessible websites that don't work with JS disabled—and I agree this sucks—but HTML is so limited your only choice is to build the niceties yourself or skip them altogether. Sure, in some circumstances you can progressively enhance (sortable table for example), but many cases having a HTML fallback that still does what you need it to is a ton of extra work. HTML covers text, painfully basic tables, semantic rectangles (<nav>, <aside>, etc.), form inputs, and embedded media. Basically, anything you could build with a word processor. Outside of that, you're on your own. JavaScript and CSS are continually improving and are so much more capable than they were even five years ago, but it feels like HTML is just stagnating. Why can't we have new elements every year, with behaviour? Stuff that works just fine out of the box, but can be easily tweaked with CSS or a little sprinkling of JS. The amount of developer time and bandwidth we could save not having to re-invent the wheel for every little thing.

It would be great if browsers implemented other common elements such as sortable data tables, carousels, etc. https://open-ui.org/ https://open-ui.org/

by pier25 6y ago

It would be great if browsers implemented other common elements such as sortable data tables, carousels, etc. https://open-ui.org/ https://open-ui.org/

gcblkjaidfj 6y ago

You have a great point. Browser UI elements are stuck in time and all the attention now is directed to things that Google can make money from (e.g. DRM, sandbox for rich apps/extensions, webrtc for their video call products, etc) but your cited site is not a good advocacy of that. Not even the most exalted UI framework fix the most obvious problems with those either. e.g. tables still won't hold the header and first column(s) while scrolling. Most of the these elements does not help consuming information, like carousels. And any true UX designer abhor them all for the fallacy they are.

kuschku 6y ago
> e.g. tables still won't hold the header and first column(s) while scrolling. https://caniuse.com/css-sticky https://caniuse.com/css-sticky position:sticky works on tables.
- gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
  It's all red :( No support anywhere but Firefox. In fact, I will now use this URL as my main argument in support of firefox! even the grand-parent, javascript infused solutions, only two out of 20 support this extremely basic and obvious use case. Web UI standards are a joke. Everyone involved only cares about rich ads and accordions/carrousels which are lame ways to shove lots of content in a badly designed space.
  - kuschku 6y ago
    Why? The yellow/striped fields mean it's still supported (as long as you add it to th instead of thead/tr):

deergomoo 6y ago

This is the issue. People (especially on HN) complain about people building un-semantic, inaccessible websites that don't work with JS disabled—and I agree this sucks—but HTML is so limited your only choice is to build the niceties yourself or skip them altogether. Sure, in some circumstances you can progressively enhance (sortable table for example), but many cases having a HTML fallback that still does what you need it to is a ton of extra work. HTML covers text, painfully basic tables, semantic rectangles (<nav>, <aside>, etc.), form inputs, and embedded media. Basically, anything you could build with a word processor. Outside of that, you're on your own. JavaScript and CSS are continually improving and are so much more capable than they were even five years ago, but it feels like HTML is just stagnating. Why can't we have new elements every year, with behaviour? Stuff that works just fine out of the box, but can be easily tweaked with CSS or a little sprinkling of JS. The amount of developer time and bandwidth we could save not having to re-invent the wheel for every little thing.