0 users browsing Discussion. | 1 guest | 8 bots
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 18-12-27, 08:29
|
|
Catboy
 Post: #117 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 202 days Last view: 6 hours |
Posted by StapleButterThat's what I said. |
| tomman |
Posted on 18-12-27, 12:16
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #107 of 1318 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 days Last view: 5 hours |
The problem is that people wants his Fecesbook and Youtubers, which by design aren't compatible with a sensible browser design. Therefore nobody but hardcore graybeard nerds would want to use it :/ ...still, there is hope: as soon as normies leave Real PCs™ for good (the only good side of the endless Appification of the Internet), we will be able to reclaim our territory! ...sort of. Let me be clear: I have no desire to go back to coding client-server native internal applications, but there is no real need to have a web browser being able to natively run a Linux kernel or Windows VM, much less a "VR/AR experience" (videogames belong to Steam/GOG/whatever, not to browsers!) Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 18-12-29, 06:45
|
|
Post: #66 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 506 days Last view: 21 days |
I just noticed something amazing about the older Youtube UI design, there's a alink to your own Channel in the side bar (ie: a sensible spot for it)! With their new UI that's hidden in the menu that appears when you click your account picture where it makes no sense. AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| tomman |
Posted on 18-12-29, 17:26 (revision 3)
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #111 of 1318 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 days Last view: 5 hours |
Talking about shit UX, now it's Google's turn again for piss over their users: https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chromes-new-ui-is-ugly-and-people-are-very-angry/ https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/12/29/0847212/google-chromes-new-ui-is-ugly-and-people-are-very-angry Apparently the last batch of UI/UX changes on Chrome's "mobile first" user interface are having a really harsh reception among its desktop version userbase, with some Twitters even threatening to pull a Mozilla ("I'll switch to Firefox!/I'll disable autoupdates and stick to the previous version until the cold death of the universe!"). But then, there is no shortage of "you're complaining about nothing, shut up" one-size-fits-all apologists around those threads. In the dawn of the personal computer era, we had plenty of choices to suit the needs of different user bases, even taking in account the fact that a lot of those choices were working around the limitations of the hardware of the era. But then, progress marched on and the hardware was no longer the limiting factor to fully unleash the imagination and creativity of developers and UI designers, yet still we managed to keep the market full of options, at the same time standards were arising to place a common ground to build minimum expectations from users about specific tasks they have to perform every day on their personal computing devices. Uniformity ensued, but there was still plenty of room for drawing users to your software (did you know USAian lawyers still stick to WordPerfect nowadays due to its particular feature set for legal stuff?). Then, cellphones happened. And they came with the same limitations that personal computers had in the beginning, so software developers and UI designers had to work around them to produce (barely) usable products. Hardware progress was rapid, except on a little thing: form factors. You can't simply tuck a full blown laptop into the pockets of your shirt/pants, so there have to be compromises, and the mobile UI happened. Not a big deal, as there was a big, long, and thick wall separating cellphones from personal computers, and we still got choices on both platforms. During this period, a parallel development was the tablet computer: no longer constrained to "half a laptop" limitations, those devices made the jump to an ordinary cellphone software stack and no input devices other than a touchscreen and a couple side buttons. Then, the Social Network happened. People discovered that not only they could post whatever inane details about their personal lives for fun and profit, they even got aware of the fact you don't even need a expensive and clumsy "computerizer" for such menial tasks. Service providers quickly started promoting this, and thus, the UXtard was born. Personal Computers no longer matter in this era where "everybody has a cellphone", damned the power users (which in the eyes of the Facebooks and Twitters of the world are old graybeard paranoids that are not monetizable anyway, thus they're decreed persona non grata on their data silos), and hence this leads us to the "Mobile First" (or more precisely, "Mobile Only") prime design directive, where desktop software pretends it's living on a cellphone, completely ignoring decades of both dedicated input devices and flexibility progress. "One size fits all, because the only available size is XS". Once again, according to those people, anyone that dares complaining about the state of things (with actual evidence in the hands, no less!) is an old grumpy senile dinosaur that HAAAAAAAATES CHANGE and should shut up and go extinct for good. Ladies and gentleman from the jury, behold, Exhibit A: There are so many users saying that they are downgrading that Google engineers have stepped in to tell people to switch to other browsers rather than use an old Chrome version. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| wareya |
Posted on 18-12-29, 19:19
|
 Post: #23 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1789 days Last view: 1354 days |
Remember when software let you install themes, and new default themes would first be introduced as options, then the default, then the old theme would be removed or disabled? I do. Hello, I'm using Windows 7 with almost the same exact windows decorations as were available on Windows 98, despite the fact that the OS has gone through three UI renovations since then. |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 18-12-29, 20:53
|
|
Would you care for a chocolate milk of glass?
Post: #119 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 202 days Last view: 6 hours |
It's too bad so many controls don't respect your color choices... |
| tomman |
Posted on 18-12-29, 21:50
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #112 of 1318 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 days Last view: 5 hours |
"Yo dawg I herd u liek Chrome so hard we turned Firefox into Chrome!" https://github.com/pratyushtewari/firefox-like-chrome This is so sad at so many levels: I can get the old Chrome (which Google has just took away without asking and without recourse) on my Firefox, but not the old Firefox (or Mozilla) on my new Firefox. It is like suddenly tomorrow all car paint makers phase out all but three colors: panty pink, vomit green, and rust. And the Toyota dealer will justify their decision because 99% of the car buyers are happy with their new 2020 Panty Pink Priuses or Texas Rusted Edition Tacomas, and I'm delusional for wanting a car in any other color than those. Since when we let Henry Ford in charge of software user interface design!? Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 18-12-30, 10:37 (revision 1)
|
|
Post: #67 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 506 days Last view: 21 days |
Posted by wareya Remember when themes used to modify the UI in more ways than just colour? Firefox "themes" these days only adjust the look of things, not the functionality/placement/design of UI elements :/ you need Web Extensions to make meaningful changes to the UI and Web Extensions are a far cry from what Add-Ons were able to do. AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 18-12-30, 10:53 (revision 1)
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #163 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 10 hours |
Man, all you noobs here don't remember life before Winamp. I remember when themes were a frippery that just wasted memory and disk space and weren't fit for anything useful. In fairness, they also didn't redesign the entire interface every six months. Except the MS Office team. They changed everything every time anyone turned around. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 18-12-30, 15:49
|
 Post: #56 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1883 days Last view: 1855 days |
Wait, did the original Winamp have themes? I don't remember it having themes... |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 18-12-30, 16:10
|
|
:3
Post: #121 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 202 days Last view: 6 hours |
*checks 1.5b2 real quick* Doesn't look like it did. |
| creaothceann |
Posted on 18-12-30, 16:11 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #43 of 456 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 51 days Last view: 5 hours |
Posted by Kakashi Yes My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10 |
| wareya |
Posted on 18-12-30, 16:22
|
|
Post: #24 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1789 days Last view: 1354 days |
Posted by Nicholas Steel You can still use userchrome modifications. |
| tomman |
Posted on 18-12-30, 16:40
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #113 of 1318 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 days Last view: 5 hours |
Winamp is a very interesting example. (According to The Wiki, their classic signature skin debuted with version 1.006, but it wasn't until the original 2.0 release where the skinning support got extended to the EQ/playlist windows) They created a easy yet distinctive UI, suitable for the displays of the era and with the option to paint it any color you wish (I myself remember using a customized Win2K-esque skin back in my WinMe era). Then Nullsoft had their Firefox moment with Winamp 3 (skins and plugins being the main contention point, among other issues like stability and performance). Did they said "you're nobody, go away"? NO! They kept maintaining Winamp 2.x for a long time, THEN they came with version 5, which not only switched to yet another UI redesign (Bento), they still managed to isolate it to a plugin, while bringing back support for classic 2.x skins and (IIRC) plugins. You can have the best of both worlds. I'm no longer a Winamp user, but last time I used it, I liked Bento for being a tidy, clean and orderly layout, at the cost of requiring a high resolution display to take advantage of it. For older displays, Classic is still king. THAT'S HOW YOU DO UI/UX, YOU SILLY VALLEY MORONS!!! Sadly, the days of peaceful coexistence between past and present are running out, now that Radionomy owns the leftovers of the former Nullsoft product and has already threatened to commit to a "mobile first" focus :/ Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Kakashi |
Posted on 18-12-30, 16:57
|
|
Post: #57 of 210 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1883 days Last view: 1855 days |
Posted by creaothceann That just confirms everything? Anyway, we've confirmed that it didn't. |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 18-12-31, 02:28
|
|
Post: #68 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 506 days Last view: 21 days |
Indeed, that's Winamp 2. AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 18-12-31, 04:04
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #165 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 10 hours |
@tomman Winamp 3 had the best of intentions. It was a mjor step forward technically speaking, but this advance came with a new skin format and plugin API. They underestimated how invested in the existing skin/plugin format their users were. I believe Winamp 5(3+2) actually emulated the old theming and plugin interfaces to achieve compatibility, which was no small feat. Lesson learned: make damn sure you are comfortable keeping this API for twenty years before you release it to the public. Unless you're on the GTK team. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 19-01-01, 07:13 (revision 6)
|
|
Post: #70 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 506 days Last view: 21 days |
https://i.imgur.com/siA1BaK.png This does not operate off of file extensions, making it 99% hopeless for what you're likely wanting to do and makes this UI confusing as fuck. My dad has 2 Tom Tom devices for example and was trying to transfer Favourites from one to the other which is handled by a webpage. The button to copy the Favourites to the desktop triggers 2 simultaneous downloads, one for a *.BMP file and another for an *.ov2 file (can't right-click the button and Save As). With Firefox configured to handle all PDF stuff via Adobe Acrobat Reader... Firefox would try to open both files with Adobe Acrobat Reader(???) which would fail. I had the genius idea to make a temporary file on the desktop, give it the ov2 file extension and associate it with say... Notepad or something to test if the behaviour changed. Firefox would continue to try opening the ov2 file with Adobe Acrobat Reader??? Why can programs now define what opens a file with a particular extension instead of Windows File Association mechanics handling it? So I went in to the Firefox settings and set all PDF stuff to "Save File As" and voila, I could now fucking save the friggen files (which have NOTHING TO DO WITH ADOBE ACROBAT READER!) from the web browser to the desktop (and then swap the devices around and use the website to transfer them to that device)! After all this I found out that the files were also visible in the Downloads UI in Firefox so I coulda right-clicked them there and done a Save As after the initial failed attempt to download them/the first time they opened with Adobe Acrobat Reader. In the end, if we had used Internet Explorer from the beginning there wouldn't have been an issue, the Download button on the website would've correctly triggered a Save As prompt without us needing to mess around with browser settings. AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-01-01, 07:33
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #172 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 70 days Last view: 10 hours |
Posted by Nicholas Steel Browsers have always used server-presented MIME types instead of *.3 file extensions. You can probably blame Unix. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-01-01, 18:46
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #116 of 1318 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 days Last view: 5 hours |
The last and first controversy of the year: Mozilla now tries to shove ads down your throat, they call it "an experiment HONEST!": https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/12/31/2219257/mozilla-says-ad-on-firefoxs-new-tab-page-was-just-another-experiment Furious nerds are threatening to switch browsers... but to what browser?! Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
