4 ms·

Yes. Web technology has advanced so much that now I can do what I was able to do in FoxPro 25 years ago, in just twice the time.

by Shorel 6y ago

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
But think about all the things that you can't do in FoxPro, like build an accessible and beautiful user-experience :)
- still_grokking 6y ago
  Ever really built an accessible Web-UI? I mean with all that ARIA stuff, that really works for the blind or other disabled people? An accessible UI that honors the platform specific conventions and integrates into the OS environment? Ever built an user-experience atop ideas like "form follows function" and "don't make me think", that has beautiful design at the same time? I actually question that there are more than a handful Web-UIs been built in that way, ever, IF actually any!
  - canadianfella 6y ago
    A user
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Ever really built an accessible Web-UI? Yes. That's what I currently get paid to do. > I mean with all that ARIA stuff, that really works for the blind or other disabled people? Yes. If I didn't do that then we'd be sued by our customers for not being accessible. > An accessible UI that honors the platform specific conventions and integrates into the OS environment? Web-applications run in the browser, independent of the host OS. While web-applications do tend to adopt some OS conventions (such as having a "close popup" button in the top-left or top-right corner, web applications on-the-whole don't really ape after Windows or macOS' conventions and the past decade of post-Windows/post-macOS web-applications UX development shows that following desktop UI conventions really isn't necessary. > Ever built an user-experience atop ideas like "form follows function" and "don't make me think", that has beautiful design at the same time? Again, yes. (Beauty is subjective, of course - I've been told my work is "gorgeous" by my boss, so I've got at least one endorsement there) > I actually question that there are more than a handful Web-UIs been built in that way, ever, IF actually any! Fewer than I'd have liked, I admit. At least with today's "cleaner" look it's easier to visually design something that isn't an eyesore. I appreciate a huge problem is that since the 2010s the learning-curve for front-end web-work has steepened considerably, and other barriers-to-entry have been introduced with no sign of them going away. Since the 2010s, when SPAs and modern CSS (flexbox, grid, responsive layout) came into being you might have noticed that fewer web dev clients today are making remarks like "my 12yo nephew could have made that!". Not to sound nostalgic, but in the late-1990s through the mid-2000s one could very easily be a very competent web-designer getting-by in Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver without ever needing to learn HTML and JavaScript (not that there was much to JavaScript back then either) - today it's increasingly essential to have at least an undergraduate CS degree to even understand how to correctly use React.js or Angular - and be comfortable with a command-line terminal. Project requirements for resolution-independent and form-factor-independent ("responsive design" - though I detest the term) web design means that the days of fixed-layout Photoshop-first web-design work and the age-old Image Slicing tool are over: tools originally designed for WYSIWYG print layout and graphic design are insufficiently expressive to allow someone to intuitively visually define how a CSS-driven layout and document-flow should work. In ye olden days it was straightforward for a relative beginner to grok how <table> could be used to make a semi-flexible layout - but explaining how CSS's grid's `auto-fit` works to the same person is impossible. And so on and so on. Web-design has gone from the approachable place where COBOL was ("write business rules in plain-English!") to being a hallowed and exclusive techno-religious cult. I can't personally complain because I appreciate the job security I now have, but I am concerned it may lead to the web becoming less and less accessible to independent self-publishers who instead flock to much easier-to-use, but proprietary, walled-gardens like Facebook pages - or to web platforms that hide the complexity entirely, like Wix, and SquareSpace.
- fouric 6y ago
  Most web sites aren't accessible. A capability is irrelevant if it's never used. Meanwhile, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The modern webtech trends are offensive to my eyes - in addition to being ridiculously compute- and visual-space-inefficient.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > visual-space-inefficient If you’re referring to the oft discussed “information density” issue, my goodness, scroll a little. That spacing is good for usability and, yes, accessibility. Those larger action targets and the space between them are not only good for us with vision impairment but for people whose only computing device is a phone.
    - fouric 6y ago
      > my goodness, scroll a little That's an anti-solution. Scrolling is bad for your brain and reduces comprehension - it makes it harder for your brain to figure out what's going on. There's a continuum between "everything on the screen is 6pt text with no spacing" and gigantic mobile-UI buttons on a desktop environment - and modern webdev errs far too close to the latter. > That spacing is good [...] accessibility. Big buttons with small text and no borders - which are part of the design trend - are significantly worse for accessibility. > That spacing is good for usability Spacing in general? Yes. The ridiculous amounts of spacing that modern webdev encourages? Absolutely not. There are diminishing returns, and modern webdev goes from "reasonable" into "unreasonable" territory. > Those larger action targets and the space between them are not only good for us with vision impairment but for people whose only computing device is a phone. My argument had to do with desktop platforms. You can build websites that are usable on phones while being efficient on desktops, either by building two separate sites, or through responsive design - but modern webdev doesn't, instead choosing to build desktop sites that have all of the aforementioned problems for no good technical reason.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        First of all, I appreciate you responding. And confirming that I did understand your complaint. > There's a continuum between "everything on the screen is 6pt text with no spacing" and gigantic mobile-UI buttons on a desktop environment - and modern webdev errs far too close to the latter. This is probably not out of laziness or lack of consideration, but because pixel accurate pointing devices also better serve a wider range of desktop users when there’s larger targets. If you’re upset by this, you’re better off focusing on improving vision correction and motor skills than complaining about designs that accommodate more people than just you. > Big buttons with small text and no borders - which are part of the design trend - are significantly worse for accessibility. I disagree with your interpretation of the design trend. What I see is buttons with text consistently sized, and with padding fitting to the container to halve the cumulative padding while providing the same tappable area. > Spacing in general? Yes. The ridiculous amounts of spacing that modern webdev encourages? Absolutely not. There are diminishing returns, and modern webdev goes from "reasonable" into "unreasonable" territory. This is apparently entirely a matter of experience and opinion. But I do the majority of my web browsing on my phone except when I’m doing dev, and I feel exactly the opposite. Stuff is too crammed in. When I do browse on my computer I don’t see more spacing, just larger sizes of everything. > My argument had to do with desktop platforms. You can build websites that are usable on phones while being efficient on desktops, either by building two separate sites, or through responsive design - but modern webdev doesn't, instead choosing to build desktop sites that have all of the aforementioned problems for no good technical reason. What you’re describing is the baseline principle of responsive design. It should be available on every device. If you’re using a touch interface on a tablet, no one can know for sure you’re not on a desktop. So, big touch targets are still necessary for those users.

Yes. Web technology has advanced so much that now I can do what I was able to do in FoxPro 25 years ago, in just twice the time.

by Shorel 6y ago

Yes. Web technology has advanced so much that now I can do what I was able to do in FoxPro 25 years ago, in just twice the time.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

But think about all the things that you can't do in FoxPro, like build an accessible and beautiful user-experience :)

still_grokking 6y ago
Ever really built an accessible Web-UI? I mean with all that ARIA stuff, that really works for the blind or other disabled people? An accessible UI that honors the platform specific conventions and integrates into the OS environment? Ever built an user-experience atop ideas like "form follows function" and "don't make me think", that has beautiful design at the same time? I actually question that there are more than a handful Web-UIs been built in that way, ever, IF actually any!
- canadianfella 6y ago
  A user
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > Ever really built an accessible Web-UI? Yes. That's what I currently get paid to do. > I mean with all that ARIA stuff, that really works for the blind or other disabled people? Yes. If I didn't do that then we'd be sued by our customers for not being accessible. > An accessible UI that honors the platform specific conventions and integrates into the OS environment? Web-applications run in the browser, independent of the host OS. While web-applications do tend to adopt some OS conventions (such as having a "close popup" button in the top-left or top-right corner, web applications on-the-whole don't really ape after Windows or macOS' conventions and the past decade of post-Windows/post-macOS web-applications UX development shows that following desktop UI conventions really isn't necessary. > Ever built an user-experience atop ideas like "form follows function" and "don't make me think", that has beautiful design at the same time? Again, yes. (Beauty is subjective, of course - I've been told my work is "gorgeous" by my boss, so I've got at least one endorsement there) > I actually question that there are more than a handful Web-UIs been built in that way, ever, IF actually any! Fewer than I'd have liked, I admit. At least with today's "cleaner" look it's easier to visually design something that isn't an eyesore. I appreciate a huge problem is that since the 2010s the learning-curve for front-end web-work has steepened considerably, and other barriers-to-entry have been introduced with no sign of them going away. Since the 2010s, when SPAs and modern CSS (flexbox, grid, responsive layout) came into being you might have noticed that fewer web dev clients today are making remarks like "my 12yo nephew could have made that!". Not to sound nostalgic, but in the late-1990s through the mid-2000s one could very easily be a very competent web-designer getting-by in Photoshop, Fireworks and Dreamweaver without ever needing to learn HTML and JavaScript (not that there was much to JavaScript back then either) - today it's increasingly essential to have at least an undergraduate CS degree to even understand how to correctly use React.js or Angular - and be comfortable with a command-line terminal. Project requirements for resolution-independent and form-factor-independent ("responsive design" - though I detest the term) web design means that the days of fixed-layout Photoshop-first web-design work and the age-old Image Slicing tool are over: tools originally designed for WYSIWYG print layout and graphic design are insufficiently expressive to allow someone to intuitively visually define how a CSS-driven layout and document-flow should work. In ye olden days it was straightforward for a relative beginner to grok how <table> could be used to make a semi-flexible layout - but explaining how CSS's grid's `auto-fit` works to the same person is impossible. And so on and so on. Web-design has gone from the approachable place where COBOL was ("write business rules in plain-English!") to being a hallowed and exclusive techno-religious cult. I can't personally complain because I appreciate the job security I now have, but I am concerned it may lead to the web becoming less and less accessible to independent self-publishers who instead flock to much easier-to-use, but proprietary, walled-gardens like Facebook pages - or to web platforms that hide the complexity entirely, like Wix, and SquareSpace.
fouric 6y ago
Most web sites aren't accessible. A capability is irrelevant if it's never used. Meanwhile, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The modern webtech trends are offensive to my eyes - in addition to being ridiculously compute- and visual-space-inefficient.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > visual-space-inefficient If you’re referring to the oft discussed “information density” issue, my goodness, scroll a little. That spacing is good for usability and, yes, accessibility. Those larger action targets and the space between them are not only good for us with vision impairment but for people whose only computing device is a phone.
  - fouric 6y ago
    > my goodness, scroll a little That's an anti-solution. Scrolling is bad for your brain and reduces comprehension - it makes it harder for your brain to figure out what's going on. There's a continuum between "everything on the screen is 6pt text with no spacing" and gigantic mobile-UI buttons on a desktop environment - and modern webdev errs far too close to the latter. > That spacing is good [...] accessibility. Big buttons with small text and no borders - which are part of the design trend - are significantly worse for accessibility. > That spacing is good for usability Spacing in general? Yes. The ridiculous amounts of spacing that modern webdev encourages? Absolutely not. There are diminishing returns, and modern webdev goes from "reasonable" into "unreasonable" territory. > Those larger action targets and the space between them are not only good for us with vision impairment but for people whose only computing device is a phone. My argument had to do with desktop platforms. You can build websites that are usable on phones while being efficient on desktops, either by building two separate sites, or through responsive design - but modern webdev doesn't, instead choosing to build desktop sites that have all of the aforementioned problems for no good technical reason.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      First of all, I appreciate you responding. And confirming that I did understand your complaint. > There's a continuum between "everything on the screen is 6pt text with no spacing" and gigantic mobile-UI buttons on a desktop environment - and modern webdev errs far too close to the latter. This is probably not out of laziness or lack of consideration, but because pixel accurate pointing devices also better serve a wider range of desktop users when there’s larger targets. If you’re upset by this, you’re better off focusing on improving vision correction and motor skills than complaining about designs that accommodate more people than just you. > Big buttons with small text and no borders - which are part of the design trend - are significantly worse for accessibility. I disagree with your interpretation of the design trend. What I see is buttons with text consistently sized, and with padding fitting to the container to halve the cumulative padding while providing the same tappable area. > Spacing in general? Yes. The ridiculous amounts of spacing that modern webdev encourages? Absolutely not. There are diminishing returns, and modern webdev goes from "reasonable" into "unreasonable" territory. This is apparently entirely a matter of experience and opinion. But I do the majority of my web browsing on my phone except when I’m doing dev, and I feel exactly the opposite. Stuff is too crammed in. When I do browse on my computer I don’t see more spacing, just larger sizes of everything. > My argument had to do with desktop platforms. You can build websites that are usable on phones while being efficient on desktops, either by building two separate sites, or through responsive design - but modern webdev doesn't, instead choosing to build desktop sites that have all of the aforementioned problems for no good technical reason. What you’re describing is the baseline principle of responsive design. It should be available on every device. If you’re using a touch interface on a tablet, no one can know for sure you’re not on a desktop. So, big touch targets are still necessary for those users.