291–300 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Designers from San Francisco, that's who. Current design trends favor "negative space", so text has to be spaced widely, with huge margins and hairsbreadth-thin fonts.
You forgot to mention the very low cost, especially for font because we gotta hide that pesky content that we have to show after all.
I'm confused as to why my google+ has almost 200,000 views, but it has zero posts and basically nobody in my circles. Is this counter broken for anyone else?
Interesting, I have 216 followers and 86,062 views...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like the new http://m.reddit.com/ Try this my redesign reddit. http://reddit.premii.com/ I hope reddit does something like this, and let user configure layout for each subreddit.
I like the design, but why is there a nav bar? I browse reddit a lot in horizontal view and the navbar just takes very important space away.
iPhone doesn't have a hardware back button, and most people don't know you can navigate back by swiping.
I will add tracking in http://hn.premii.com/ to see how many user uses in landscape mode vs portrait.
Hiding navbar in the landscape mode is an option.
Google seem to keep making worse the thing that matters most to me. What I want is to conveniently read. I want to see content, from a variety of sources. I want density. I want to catch up and be aware. It was like that in the earlier days. Every update kept reducing the amount of visible content, and severe reductions in density. Here is a screenshot of my screen - http://i.imgur.com/fM2WIVf.png (1920x1200) - almos…
I think the biggest issue is the design. The card layout is generally big no-no in design community. It presents too many choices for the reader for where to focus. Users don't like to make choices because it represents friction in consumption. The FB layout is one item at a time with small column so eyes doesn't have to scan right to left too much. If user doesn't like item you just move on. The ranking of posts is…
My articles are normally either in list or magazine views, and only graphically-heavy feed groups (like comics or photos) are in card view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A little less contrast Other than this, I agree. Black on white is fine, and hell no, don't make the background slightly gray. If my display is too bright I turn the brightness down.
Do you dislike the slightly grey background on HN? I can't say I really notice such things.
Shame, the single anti-feature that prevents me from joining is still in place: >Join Google+ by creating your public profile I don't want a Public Profile. I don't need my gmail account to have a public profile. I don't need search engines, randos, nobodies, everybody to have access to my profile. Why does Google mandate Public Profiles? I don't understand. Facebook does not mandate Public profiles (if you visit my…
There is a hidden option to create a totally private profile. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2015/05/how-to-make-your-google-acc... You have to set your audience settings to "No one".
On Facebook, if I restrict my page and send you the link you will see: 404 error, page not found
On G+ if I follow your advice and send you the link you will see: has restricted this page.
It's still a fully public profile which resolves as a URL and contains real personal information (name+photo) that cannot be disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a hidden option to create a totally private profile. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2015/05/how-to-make-your-google-acc... You have to set your audience settings to "No one".
This doesn't remove the public page, it simply adds a "restricted" message to still-public page that still contains information like name and photo. On Facebook, if I restrict my page and send you the link you will see: 404 error, page not found On G+ if I follow your advice and send you the link you will see: has restricted this page. It's still a fully public profile which resolves as a URL and contains real person…
But, yeah, I agree that G+ is dreadful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't remove the public page, it simply adds a "restricted" message to still-public page that still contains information like name and photo. On Facebook, if I restrict my page and send you the link you will see: 404 error, page not found On G+ if I follow your advice and send you the link you will see: has restricted this page. It's still a fully public profile which resolves as a URL and contains real person…
That's a reasonable point - although there's no obligation for you to use your real phone. You could be any one of a thousand Chris Rileys. But, yeah, I agree that G+ is dreadful.
For me, an anonymous white male, it's a small issue. But for a minority with an easily identified unique name, or a girl against whom someone would spend tons more effort to identify, a forced Public page including mandatory public information such as name and photo isn't just inconvenient, it's dangerous.
Google seem to keep making worse the thing that matters most to me. What I want is to conveniently read. I want to see content, from a variety of sources. I want density. I want to catch up and be aware. It was like that in the earlier days. Every update kept reducing the amount of visible content, and severe reductions in density. Here is a screenshot of my screen - http://i.imgur.com/fM2WIVf.png (1920x1200) - almos…