This old article from Chris is evergreen. There’s been some recent discussion of calling these words “downplayers”, which I kind of like. Whatever they are, try not to use them in documentation.
Languages, platforms, and systems that break from the norms of computing.
This is easily my favourite use of a machine learning algorithm.
These definitions work for me:
This explains rubber ducking.
Speaking out loud is not only a medium of communication, but a technology of thinking: it encourages the formation and processing of thoughts.
Tess calls for more precise language—like “site” and “origin”—when talking about browsers and resources:
When talking about web features with security or privacy impact, folks often talk about “first parties” and “third parties”. Everyone sort of knows what we mean when we use these terms, but it turns out that we often mean different things, and what we each think these terms mean usually doesn’t map cleanly onto the technical mechanisms browsers actually use to distinguish different actors for security or privacy purposes.
They came for the writers of car brochures, but I wasn’t a writer of car brochures, so I said nothing.
This is a nifty visual interactive explainer for the language of CSS—could be very handy for Codebar students.
Nice and straightforward. Locally:
git branch -m master main
git push -u origin main
Then on the server:
git branch -m master main
git branch -u origin/main
On github.com, go into the repo’s settings and update the default branch.
Thanks for this, Scott!
P.S. Don’t read the comments.
I think Simon is onto something here. While the word “performance” means something amongst devs, it’s too vague to be useful when communicating with other disciplines. I like the idea of using the more descriptive “page speed” or “site speed” in those situations.
Web Performance and Web Performance Optimization are still valid and descriptive terms for our industry, but we might benefit from a change to our language when working with others. The language we use could be critical to the success of making the web a faster and more accessible place.
“Serverless”, is a buzzword. We can’t seem to agree on what it actaully means, so it ends up meaning nothing at all. Much like “cloud” or “dynamic” or “synergy”. You just wait for the right time in a meeting to drop it, walk to the board and draw a Venn Diagram, and then just sit back and wait for your well-deserved promotion.
That’s very true, and I do not like the term “serverless” for the rather obvious reason that it’s all about servers (someone else’s servers, that is). But these three principles are handy for figuring out if you’re building with in a serverlessy kind of way:
- You have no knowledge of the underlying system where your code runs.
- Scaling is an intrinsic attribute of the technology; so much so that it just happens automatically.
- You only pay for what you use.
Abstraction; scale; consumption.
I can see this coming in very handy at Codebar—pop any CSS selector in here and get a plain English explanation of what it’s doing.
It may be the end of the world as we know it, but other worlds are possible.
The characteristica universalis and the calculus racionator of Leibniz.
- Write Chronologically, Not Spatially
- Write Left to Right, Top to Bottom
- Don’t Use Colors and Icons Alone
- Describe the Action, Not the Behavior
We’ve industrialized design and are relegated to squeezing efficiencies out of it through our design systems. All CSS changes must now have a business value and user story ticket attached to it.
Dave follows on from my post about design systems and automation.
At the same time, I have seen first hand how design systems can yield improvements in accessibility, performance, and shared knowledge across a willing team. I’ve seen them illuminate problems in design and code. I’ve seen them speed up design and development allowing teams to build, share, and validate prototypes or A/B tests before undergoing costly guesswork in production. There’s value in these tools, these processes.
An interesting project that will research and document the language used across different design systems to name similar components.