3 ms·

The UX of Jetbrains IDE is objectively worse, I will take Rider as example (since I use it everyday). We can start with basic things: the contrast, in default

by Kuinox 2y ago

The UX of Jetbrains IDE is objectively worse, I will take Rider as example (since I use it everyday). We can start with basic things: the contrast, in default settings in dark mode for both. In theses conditions, Rider contrast is too low for a screen you have to stare all the day, compared to VS Code. Commonly used item are in sub menus (in vscode they are sorted by most commonly items on top), common shortcuts requires finger gymnastics.

buggy6257 2y ago
So your arguments that it’s “objectively bad” are - it has bad defaults for theme (which I bet most devs change immediately anyways on every IDE) - “common items” (which when unspecified could be assumed to be subjective to each persons workflow) are hidden in submenus? - “common shortcuts” (again unspecified) require stretching (again, something trivially changed) Unless you have more these feel not only extremely weak but extremely subjective. Please avoid trying to phrase your opinions as some fact it’s a tiring trope these days.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  The fact that's the contrast is bad isn't something subjective, the font rendering is also shit and reduce the contrast further. This is an accessibility issue, not some subjective problem.
  - buggy6257 2y ago
    Allow me to be more clear then: - “default theme sucks and is bad accessibility”. On its own this is objectively provable of course except when you’re talking about probably the single most commonly changed setting in a coders primary IDE other than maybe font. Calling the app objectively bad because it chose a bad default theme that gets immediately changed is a weak take - “hidden menu options” this is the subjective one as I called out unless you can provide examples that are universal. - “bad keyboard shortcuts” is subjective for the most part but even still is a widely changed option and very easy to fix. So calling the app objectively bad for this is also a weak take.
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      You can select a simple metric, practicality, that will be objective. The items in VS Code are sorted the chance you have to use it depending of the context. In rider, commonly used items are in submenu (rename hiding in refactoring), less commonly used items are not in the submenus. For the keyboard shorcuts, again you can argue practicality as an objective metric. The number of keys for a combo and distance between the keys have a big practicality factor, and Jetbrains IDEs loves F-keys (that you can't reach if you hold a keyboard like ergonomists recommends)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
bayindirh 2y ago
I believe all of them are configurable in Rider, no?
- Kuinox 2y ago
  You can also configure the VS Code UX.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    That's not the question. The question was "you can change the toolbars and shortcuts in JetBrains Rider, no?" I presume the answer is yes, from what you said. Then it becomes less of an issue, if not an non-issue. IDEs and code editors are tools which we live with for a long time. Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. Otherwise we'd be all using notepad.exe for coding. Not having the defaults organized by your tastes is not a valid reason for disqualifying a tool out of the gate. As a counter example, Electron's font rendering is nothing to drool over, from my perspective, and doesn't give an extra point for using it in my case.
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      > Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. The OC point was that VS Code UX "is a mess by comparison", and VS Code UX is fully configurable, therefor if you have a problem with VS Code UX, you are complaining about it's defaults settings. Also Jetbrains IDEs font rendering is simply awful, it doesn't hold the comparison to electron: https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png
    - Nullabillity 2y ago
      An IDE's literal whole selling point is supposedly being a packaged product that you can just pick up and run with, at the price of not being particularly good at any of the things it does (and usually being pretty expensive). If you still need to customize everything then, well, what did you actually gain over assembling your environment by yourself from actually competent pieces?
MissTake 2y ago
“objectively bad” No, it’s subjectively bad for you. It really grinds my gears when people use “objectively” when being objective is to deal purely in unbiased observable, repeatable facts. Your justification starts first with screen contrast - something that is truly in the eye of the beholder. Then you go on about “finger gymnastics” for shortcuts - again something that you (and yes I don’t disagree others as well) suffer from. Neither are issues that have bothered me one iota - so much so that your mention is really the first time I’ve thought about either. However you then compare this to another app that also has many detractors thus creating an instant bias.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  The amount of contrast can be measured. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/Understanding_WCAG/Perceivable/Color_contrast https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/U... Due to the poor font rendering and colors picked in Rider, by default there is a contrast of 4.77 which is just meet the minimum ratio, and for an app you stare all the day at, it's not enough. From the firefox docs: > Having good color contrast on your site benefits all your users It's written all your users, it's not subjective.
  - MissTake 2y ago
    “minimum ratio” Which is what? Is it a well defined fact?
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      It's defined in the document I linked. And yes, it's a well defined fact.
      - MissTake 2y ago
        > When designing readable interfaces for different vision capabilities, the WCAG guidelines recommend the following contrast ratios So, they’re recommendations, not facts. A fact is not a recommendation. You can cling to this until the cows come home, but anything visual is dependent on the viewer. It’s not a fact. It’s subjective.

by Kuinox 2y ago

buggy6257 2y ago

So your arguments that it’s “objectively bad” are - it has bad defaults for theme (which I bet most devs change immediately anyways on every IDE) - “common items” (which when unspecified could be assumed to be subjective to each persons workflow) are hidden in submenus? - “common shortcuts” (again unspecified) require stretching (again, something trivially changed) Unless you have more these feel not only extremely weak but extremely subjective. Please avoid trying to phrase your opinions as some fact it’s a tiring trope these days.

Kuinox 2y ago
The fact that's the contrast is bad isn't something subjective, the font rendering is also shit and reduce the contrast further. This is an accessibility issue, not some subjective problem.
- buggy6257 2y ago
  Allow me to be more clear then: - “default theme sucks and is bad accessibility”. On its own this is objectively provable of course except when you’re talking about probably the single most commonly changed setting in a coders primary IDE other than maybe font. Calling the app objectively bad because it chose a bad default theme that gets immediately changed is a weak take - “hidden menu options” this is the subjective one as I called out unless you can provide examples that are universal. - “bad keyboard shortcuts” is subjective for the most part but even still is a widely changed option and very easy to fix. So calling the app objectively bad for this is also a weak take.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    You can select a simple metric, practicality, that will be objective. The items in VS Code are sorted the chance you have to use it depending of the context. In rider, commonly used items are in submenu (rename hiding in refactoring), less commonly used items are not in the submenus. For the keyboard shorcuts, again you can argue practicality as an objective metric. The number of keys for a combo and distance between the keys have a big practicality factor, and Jetbrains IDEs loves F-keys (that you can't reach if you hold a keyboard like ergonomists recommends)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

bayindirh 2y ago

I believe all of them are configurable in Rider, no?

Kuinox 2y ago
You can also configure the VS Code UX.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  That's not the question. The question was "you can change the toolbars and shortcuts in JetBrains Rider, no?" I presume the answer is yes, from what you said. Then it becomes less of an issue, if not an non-issue. IDEs and code editors are tools which we live with for a long time. Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. Otherwise we'd be all using notepad.exe for coding. Not having the defaults organized by your tastes is not a valid reason for disqualifying a tool out of the gate. As a counter example, Electron's font rendering is nothing to drool over, from my perspective, and doesn't give an extra point for using it in my case.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    > Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. The OC point was that VS Code UX "is a mess by comparison", and VS Code UX is fully configurable, therefor if you have a problem with VS Code UX, you are complaining about it's defaults settings. Also Jetbrains IDEs font rendering is simply awful, it doesn't hold the comparison to electron: https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png
  - Nullabillity 2y ago
    An IDE's literal whole selling point is supposedly being a packaged product that you can just pick up and run with, at the price of not being particularly good at any of the things it does (and usually being pretty expensive). If you still need to customize everything then, well, what did you actually gain over assembling your environment by yourself from actually competent pieces?

MissTake 2y ago

“objectively bad” No, it’s subjectively bad for you. It really grinds my gears when people use “objectively” when being objective is to deal purely in unbiased observable, repeatable facts. Your justification starts first with screen contrast - something that is truly in the eye of the beholder. Then you go on about “finger gymnastics” for shortcuts - again something that you (and yes I don’t disagree others as well) suffer from. Neither are issues that have bothered me one iota - so much so that your mention is really the first time I’ve thought about either. However you then compare this to another app that also has many detractors thus creating an instant bias.

Kuinox 2y ago
The amount of contrast can be measured. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/Understanding_WCAG/Perceivable/Color_contrast https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/U... Due to the poor font rendering and colors picked in Rider, by default there is a contrast of 4.77 which is just meet the minimum ratio, and for an app you stare all the day at, it's not enough. From the firefox docs: > Having good color contrast on your site benefits all your users It's written all your users, it's not subjective.
- MissTake 2y ago
  “minimum ratio” Which is what? Is it a well defined fact?
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    It's defined in the document I linked. And yes, it's a well defined fact.
    - MissTake 2y ago
      > When designing readable interfaces for different vision capabilities, the WCAG guidelines recommend the following contrast ratios So, they’re recommendations, not facts. A fact is not a recommendation. You can cling to this until the cows come home, but anything visual is dependent on the viewer. It’s not a fact. It’s subjective.