6 ms·
It's a nice idea. I've recently been working with React more, and one of the things which can be frustrating is that it's often hard to find the right level of
by skohan 5y ago
It's a nice idea. I've recently been working with React more, and one of the things which can be frustrating is that it's often hard to find the right level of composability if you want to combine ready-made components. I.e. if you are looking for something like a spreadsheet as a component, maybe you find one with the correct behaviors, but it handles animations in a way you don't like. Or maybe you have to pick something non-optimal because it comes with the drag-and-drop handling you want. Or you have to build completely from scratch if you want to achieve exactly what you want.
In other words, it would be nice to have slices of UI behavior defined more orthogonally in a way which can be more freely layered, and it seems like this is a step in that direction.
- fastball 5y agoLike this? https://github.com/tannerlinsley/react-table/ https://github.com/tannerlinsley/react-table/
- dTal 5y agoFrom the developer perspective, I can certainly relate. From the user perspective, yet another widget with subtly different behaviour is very annoying. I'd much rather you add drag and drop handling to the existing widget so that everyone benefits and UIs remain consistent.
- skohan 5y agoYeah I get this argument for native apps, but does it really make sense in the context of a React app? If I'm combining components from different authors, what's more important to the user is consistency between components in my application, not consistency for an individual component across different unrelated sites.
- dTal 5y agoIn the age of SPAs and Electron, can we really distinguish between "React apps" and "native apps"? The user doesn't care about the technical details - they just want a consistent UI throughout their computing experience. <rant> Hell, back in the 2000s, even web apps used native widgets, and we shamed websites that implemented their own UIs in Flash because they were bloated and inaccessible. Now we do it in Javascript and it's considered okay, even though all the same objections apply. And with Electron apps we've managed to combine all the worst aspects of web apps and native apps - they're slow, non-native and not cross-platform, and don't have text search, and still have to be installed. </rant>
- rbobby 5y agoWait... electron isn't cross-platform?
- dTal 5y agoIn theory, but the developer still has to build it for each platform separately. Often they don't bother. It's not hard to find Windows-only Electron apps. This stands in contrast to webpages, which "just work" everywhere.
- beebeepka 5y agoI was unable to create a Mac and Windows builds on Linux hist. Super annoying. Pretty sure it was just me, though. Can't imagine people have different build machines for each platform There has to be a better way
- chiefalchemist 5y agoI'd say they're both important. Yes, you want consistency within the UX. Of course. But the users' expectations are set by their cumulative (read: across all apps) broader experience. If a high percentage of your users have a certain expectation for Interaction X and the app is not that (tho' consistent within the application) those users will likely be disappointed. Of course some components + UX are truly unique. Perhaps the crux of your killer app / killer feature. Unfortunately, this is not as often as most ppl think; thus too much time is wasted making unique those things which are better off frictionless and forgettable.