Are you the creator, programmer, or quality-tester of a podcasting application? This page provides a range of podcasts that exemplify a range of atypical use case from merely uncommon to exceedingly fringe. If your app can handle all these, you’re doing well.
The title is pure clickbait, and the moral panic early in this article repeats the Toyota myth, but then it settles down into a fascinating examination of abstractions in programming. On the one hand, there’s the problem of the not enough abstraction: having to write in code is such a computer-centric way of building things. On the other hand, our world is filled with dangerously abstracted systems:
When your tires are flat, you look at your tires, they are flat. When your software is broken, you look at your software, you see nothing.
So that’s a big problem.
Bret Victor, John Resig and Margaret Hamilton are featured. Doug Engelbart and J.C.R. Licklider aren’t mentioned but their spirits loom large.
Well, I guess it’s time to change all my locally-hosted sites from
.dev domains to
.test. Thanks, Google.
Riffing on Rachel’s talk at Patterns Day:
At the Patterns Day conference last month, Rachel Andrew mentioned something interesting about patterns. She said that working with reusable interface components, where each one has its own page, made her realise that those work quite well as isolated test cases. I feel this also goes for some accessibility tests: there is a number of criteria where isolation aids testing.
Hidde specifically singles out these patterns:
- Collapsible (“Show/hide”)
- Form field
- Video player
James gives—if you’ll pardon the pun— hands-on advice on making sites that consider motor impairment:
- Don’t assume keyboard access is all you need
- Auto complete/Autofill
- Show me my password
- Allow for fine motor control issues
- Don’t autoplay videos
- Avoid hover-only controls
- Infinite scrolling considerations
- Be mindful of touch
- Avoid small hit targets
- Provide alternate controls for touch gestures
Far from being a niche concern, visitors with some form of motor impairment likely make up a significant percentage of your users. I would encourage you to test your website or application with your less dominant hand. Is it still easy to use?
Your website’s only as strong as the weakest device you’ve tested it on.
It’s no substitute for testing with real devices, but the “device wall” view in this Chrome plug-in is a nifty way of getting an overview of a site’s responsiveness at a glance.
This looks like a useful tool, not just for testing locally-hosted sites (say, at a device lab), but also for making locally-hosted sites run on HTTPS so you can test service workers.
Excellent and practical advice for before, during, and after research sessions and usability tests.
Smart use of attribute selectors in CSS to catch mistakes in HTML.
Some interesting insights from usability and accessibility testing at the Co-op.
We used ‘nesting’ to reduce the amount of information on the page when the user first reaches it. When the user chooses an option, we ask for any other details at that point rather than having all the questions on the page at once.
A little tool for testing common form issues.
- Did we remember to give every input a label? (No, placeholders are not an adequate replacement)?
- Do our labels’ for attributes match our inputs’ ids?
- Did we take advantage of the url, email, and password input types, or did we forget and just use text?
- Are our required fields marked as such?
Ire rounds up a bunch of tools you can use to test accessibility, from dev tools to Tenon.
Here’s an interesting metric for measuring performance: take the overall page weight of a URL and divide it by the file size of the screenshot of that URL.
Alex runs through the features that a progressive web app must have, should have, and would be nice to have.
In general, installability criteria are tightening. Today’s Good-To-Haves may become part of tomorrow’s baseline. The opposite is unlikely because at least one major browser has made a strong commitment to tightening up the rules for installability.
Right now, this is in the nice-to-have category:
Mobile-friendly, not mobile-only.
Personally, I’d put that in the must-have category, and not just for progressive web apps.
Anyway, read on for some advice on testing and tooling when it comes to evaluating progressive web apps.
Some interesting outcomes from testing gov.uk with blind users of touchscreen devices:
Rather than reading out the hierarchy of the page, some of the users navigated by moving their finger around to ‘discover’ content.
This was really interesting - traditionally good structure for screen readers is about order and hierarchy. But for these users, the physical placement on the screen was also really important (just as it is for sighted users).
There’s a lot I disagree with here. I don’t think this pattern library process is very elegant or scalable, and it certainly wouldn’t work for me.
But I’m still linking to it. Why? Because I think it’s absolutely wonderful that people share their processes like this. It doesn’t matter one whit whether or not it would work for me.
Frontend development may have gotten a lot more complicated, but the simple premise of sharing what you’ve learned hasn’t.
I couldn’t agree more!
The book by Destiny Montague and Lara Hogan is online for free with a Creative Commons licence:
Learn to build a device lab with advice on purchasing, power solutions, and much more in this handy pocket guide.
Do you live in Stockholm? If so, you’ve got a device lab you can visit.
So feel free to drop by and test your responsive/mobile designs.