Tuesday, March 21st, 2017
Saturday, March 18th, 2017
Hope is a belief that what we do might matter, an understanding that the future is not yet written.
Rebecca Solnit’s piece reminded me of something I mentioned a couple of year’s back when I referred to Margaret Atwood’s phrase “judicious hope”:
Hope sounds like such a wishy-washy word, like “faith” or “belief”, but it carries with it a seed of resistance. Hope, faith, and belief all carry connotations of optimism, but where faith and belief sound passive, even downright complacent, hope carries the promise of action.
Wednesday, March 8th, 2017
Josh gives a thorough roundup of the Interaction ‘17 event he co-chaired.
“I think I’ve distilled what this conference is all about,” Jeremy Keith quipped to me during one of the breaks. “It’s about how we’ll save the world through some nightmarish combination of virtual reality, chatbots, and self-driving cars.”
Thursday, January 19th, 2017
Ever been on one of those websites that doesn’t allow you to paste into the password field? Frustrating, isn’t it? (Especially if you use a password manager.)
It turns out that nobody knows how this ever started. It’s like a cargo cult without any cargo.
Wednesday, December 28th, 2016
Monday, December 26th, 2016
I really like this list of observations (Vasilis pointed it my way). I feel like it encapsulates some of what I was talking about in chapter two of Resilient Web Design. The only point I’d take issue with now is the very last one.
Friday, November 25th, 2016
It reminds me of the old jQuery philosophy: find something and do stuff to it.
Tuesday, October 11th, 2016
Wednesday, August 31st, 2016
I wrote a while back about how I switched from using a button to using a link for progressive disclosure patterns. That looks like it was a good move—if I use a button, I’d need to use
aria-controls and, as Heydon outlines here, the screen reader support is pants.
Monday, July 25th, 2016
class keyword. This introduction has been accompanied by a fair amount of concern and criticism.
Now if you believe that outcomes matter more than understanding, then this is a perfectly acceptable trade-off. After all, we use computers every day without needing to understand the inner workings of every single piece of code under the hood.
The most common way that people refer to the new
My personal opinion is that this isn’t healthy.
(Full disclosure: Kyle also some very kind things about some of my blog posts at the end of that episode, but you can switch it off before it gets to that bit.)
Both Ashley and Kyle bring a much-needed perspective to the discussion of language design. That perspective is the perspective of a teacher.
In his essay on W3C’s design principles, Bert Bos lists learnability among the fundamental driving forces (closely tied to readability). Learnability and teachability are two sides of the same coin, and I find it valuable to examine any language decisions through that lens. With that mind, introducing a new feature into a language that comes with such low teachability value as to warrant a teacher actively telling a student not to learn how things really work …well, that just doesn’t seem right.
Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016
A catalogue of objects and observations from cities around the world.
Sunday, June 12th, 2016
On the need for a way to mark parts of a document as “inert” while the user is interacting with modal content.
Saturday, June 11th, 2016
A very handy collection:
This book contains frontend coding patterns (and anti-patterns) that will assist developers in building accessible e-commerce web pages, widgets and workflows.
I like that it contains a list of anti-patterns too.
There’s also a corresponding collection of working demos.
Saturday, June 4th, 2016
A few common patterns—tooltips, fly-out menus, and toggles—that you can achieve with CSS.
Thursday, June 2nd, 2016
A lovely interactive demonstration of evolution, based on the original code Richard Dawkins used for Climbing Mount Improbable.
Monday, May 30th, 2016
A nice little collection of interaction patterns with built-in accessibility and no dependencies.
Monday, May 23rd, 2016
A typically superb article by Aaron. Here, he breaks down a resilient approach to building for the web by examining the multiple ways you could add a button to a page. There’s a larger lesson here too:
We don’t control where our web-based products go or how our users access them. All we can do is imagine as many less-than-perfect scenarios as possible and do our best to ensure our creations will continue to do what they’re supposed to do. One of the easiest ways to do that is to be aware of and limit our dependencies.
Tuesday, April 26th, 2016
I really, really like this approach. I’ve used something similar in my responsive design workshops, where I get people to break things down into nouns and verbs (objects and actions). I think there’s a lot of crossover with good URL design here too—this is kind of like REST for UX designers.
Wednesday, April 13th, 2016
I quite like this step-by-step interface for a form, all cleverly handled with the
:focus pseudo-class. I’d want to refine some of the usability issues before using it in production, but the progressive disclosure is nice.
Sunday, February 7th, 2016
My concern is that by encouraging the practice of doing UX design without touching the surface of a product, we get shitty designs. In a process where UX and UI are seen as separate things the risk is one comes before the other. The UX designer draws the wireframes, the UI designer gets to turn them into pretty pictures, with no back-and-forth between the two. An iterative process can mitigate some of the damage such an artificial division of labour produces, but I think we still start out on the wrong foot. I think a better practice might entail including visual considerations from the very beginning of the design process (as we are sketching).