4 ms·

It looks decent enough, but they forgot that it actually needs to be usable.

by 38 3y ago

krapp 3y ago
It what way is it not usable?
- 38 3y ago
  1. change the width of the window. you will see the layout of the page change at least 10 times. 2. scroll down. you will see the layout of the page change at least 4 times. 3. the single most important part of the page, the NAVIGATION, is hidden inside a drop down. so every single navigation for every page forever takes a click, mouse down and click again. instead of just clicking a link like the old style. 4. fixed elements on the top AND side. the whole page is just a painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit, that may look nice, but is awful for actually navigating/using.
  - krapp 3y ago
    >1. change the width of the window. you will see the layout of the page change at least 10 times. I didn't see that, it reflowed immediately for me. >2. scroll down. you will see the layout of the page change at least 4 times. I didn't notice anything. >3. the single most important part of the page, the NAVIGATION, is hidden inside a drop down. so every single navigation for every page forever takes a click, mouse down and click again. instead of just clicking a link like the old style. OK, but dropdown menus have been common for ages, I remember messing with Superfish back in the JQuery days, and the menu options seem to load on hover for me. >4. fixed elements on the top AND side. Yes, and? The point of that is to keep common navigation elements within easy reach of the mouse, rather than requiring the user to have to scroll up to the top of the document. It makes navigation easier. I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree about this, since you're clearly emotional about it, I won't press the issue. I personally didn't find this site to be a "painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit" nor did I find navigation to be at all difficult.
    - 38 3y ago
      > I didn't see that, it reflowed immediately for me. it should not be reflowing 10 times, thats the problem. pick your battles. reflow a couple of times. after that just use a god damn scrollbar. > I didn't notice anything. the page layout changes due to multiple fixed elements locking into place > OK, but dropdown menus have been common for ages ah, so crappy experiences are acceptable if they have existed for a long time? I guess I should go back to coding C then > The point of that is to keep common navigation elements within easy reach of the mouse, rather than requiring the user to have to scroll up to the top of the document. It makes navigation easier. pick one. preferably side, because vertical space is KNOWN to be tight, its not a secret. > since you're clearly emotional about it or maybe you could just make a compelling argument, instead of resorting to petty ad hominem.
      - krapp 3y ago
        What petty ad hominem? Your language is clearly emotional. "painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit" is not a reason-based, technical argument, it's an expression of anger. As far as I see, nothing you've brought up here actually demonstrates that the site is unusable. Vertical space isn't tight, the site reflows to take account of that. The three-panel layout has been around forever, it's so common because it's an efficient way of organizing site-wide and page-wide navigation. Clearly the site is usable, it seems as if you're just nitpicking details you personally don't like and overreacting to them. I don't know what to tell you. I don't see the problems you see. You want me to make a "compelling argument" about what amounts to a disagreement on subjective matters, when you're just having an extended temper tantrum and calling everything shit. Go touch grass. I'm out.
        38 3y ago
        > Your language is clearly emotional. that might be true, but how does that address the points in my arguments? if someone is lacking a strong argument, its easier to attack the commenter. > is not a reason-based, technical argument, it's an expression of anger this comment seems to ignore the four technical points I made in a previous comment. > Vertical space isn't tight unless one is on portrait device, yeah, it is. > The three-panel layout has been around forever, it's so common because it's an efficient way of organizing site-wide and page-wide navigation. it also hogs too much vertical space. again just because something is old doesn't mean its good. guess what, the home button has existed for longer, so people can press that, and then a fixed top bar is not needed. > Clearly the site is usable, it seems as if you're just nitpicking details you personally don't like and overreacting to them. another ad hominem. I would welcome a constructive comment, rather than a low effort attack. > You want me to make a "compelling argument" about what amounts to a disagreement on subjective matters I provided reasoned justification to my position. however some people seem distracted by the strong language, or maybe just using that as an excuse to avoid having to actually create a cogent reply to the point being made.

It looks decent enough, but they forgot that it actually needs to be usable.

by 38 3y ago

It looks decent enough, but they forgot that it actually needs to be usable.

krapp 3y ago

It what way is it not usable?

38 3y ago
1. change the width of the window. you will see the layout of the page change at least 10 times. 2. scroll down. you will see the layout of the page change at least 4 times. 3. the single most important part of the page, the NAVIGATION, is hidden inside a drop down. so every single navigation for every page forever takes a click, mouse down and click again. instead of just clicking a link like the old style. 4. fixed elements on the top AND side. the whole page is just a painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit, that may look nice, but is awful for actually navigating/using.
- krapp 3y ago
  >1. change the width of the window. you will see the layout of the page change at least 10 times. I didn't see that, it reflowed immediately for me. >2. scroll down. you will see the layout of the page change at least 4 times. I didn't notice anything. >3. the single most important part of the page, the NAVIGATION, is hidden inside a drop down. so every single navigation for every page forever takes a click, mouse down and click again. instead of just clicking a link like the old style. OK, but dropdown menus have been common for ages, I remember messing with Superfish back in the JQuery days, and the menu options seem to load on hover for me. >4. fixed elements on the top AND side. Yes, and? The point of that is to keep common navigation elements within easy reach of the mouse, rather than requiring the user to have to scroll up to the top of the document. It makes navigation easier. I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree about this, since you're clearly emotional about it, I won't press the issue. I personally didn't find this site to be a "painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit" nor did I find navigation to be at all difficult.
  - 38 3y ago
    > I didn't see that, it reflowed immediately for me. it should not be reflowing 10 times, thats the problem. pick your battles. reflow a couple of times. after that just use a god damn scrollbar. > I didn't notice anything. the page layout changes due to multiple fixed elements locking into place > OK, but dropdown menus have been common for ages ah, so crappy experiences are acceptable if they have existed for a long time? I guess I should go back to coding C then > The point of that is to keep common navigation elements within easy reach of the mouse, rather than requiring the user to have to scroll up to the top of the document. It makes navigation easier. pick one. preferably side, because vertical space is KNOWN to be tight, its not a secret. > since you're clearly emotional about it or maybe you could just make a compelling argument, instead of resorting to petty ad hominem.
    - krapp 3y ago
      What petty ad hominem? Your language is clearly emotional. "painfully obvious over engineered piece of shit" is not a reason-based, technical argument, it's an expression of anger. As far as I see, nothing you've brought up here actually demonstrates that the site is unusable. Vertical space isn't tight, the site reflows to take account of that. The three-panel layout has been around forever, it's so common because it's an efficient way of organizing site-wide and page-wide navigation. Clearly the site is usable, it seems as if you're just nitpicking details you personally don't like and overreacting to them. I don't know what to tell you. I don't see the problems you see. You want me to make a "compelling argument" about what amounts to a disagreement on subjective matters, when you're just having an extended temper tantrum and calling everything shit. Go touch grass. I'm out.
      - 38 3y ago
        > Your language is clearly emotional. that might be true, but how does that address the points in my arguments? if someone is lacking a strong argument, its easier to attack the commenter. > is not a reason-based, technical argument, it's an expression of anger this comment seems to ignore the four technical points I made in a previous comment. > Vertical space isn't tight unless one is on portrait device, yeah, it is. > The three-panel layout has been around forever, it's so common because it's an efficient way of organizing site-wide and page-wide navigation. it also hogs too much vertical space. again just because something is old doesn't mean its good. guess what, the home button has existed for longer, so people can press that, and then a fixed top bar is not needed. > Clearly the site is usable, it seems as if you're just nitpicking details you personally don't like and overreacting to them. another ad hominem. I would welcome a constructive comment, rather than a low effort attack. > You want me to make a "compelling argument" about what amounts to a disagreement on subjective matters I provided reasoned justification to my position. however some people seem distracted by the strong language, or maybe just using that as an excuse to avoid having to actually create a cogent reply to the point being made.