Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

remix.run

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 307 posts

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#211

Post by abledon »

bryans wrote: post #204
Kiro wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just your opinion. I think it's awesome and if it really "breaks every UI/UX rule in the book" it's a great example of how breaking the rules can be a good thing.

I'd love to hear exactly why you think it's "awesome" and "a good thing" to force users to scroll an entire window height in order to read part of one sentence. The reality is that they could have produced this same concept in a way that doesn't force such extreme interaction to consume very minimal content, resulting in the same "awesomeness" without wasting the user's time or energy.

The concepts presented , If the reader is not already well versed in the domain, seem hard to digest in under 30s if in video form . I’m from a backend world and frontend sometimes seems wild how fast it moves/changes… have you ever read a book and savored a single sentence ? Reflecting on what it says and the implications ? I find this site to be amazing at doing this or at least offering a great opportunity to do so. If I watch a 30s video, I would more easily “indigest” The concepts because they would be presented so fast then be lost after seconds, as the video moves onto the next topic.

Perhaps you are coming at the interpretation from an “experts” viewpoint? (With all the bonuses/hindrances that can come along with it)

Off topic Have you ever done psychedelics ?

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#213

Post by faeyanpiraat »

kome wrote: post #145
haolez wrote: post #79

Off topic: this is the best landing page I've ever seen on a mobile device. Keep scrolling down for some surprises!

wow, i have a radically different opinion from yours. for me it is the perfect example of some bad trend in webdesign. It feels like a powerpoint. And just to be clear: powerpoint is useful in some cases, but not on the web. On the web, it sucks. It's mindbogglingly bloated and terrible.

It wouldn't be great if the web transformed into this format, but experiencing one or two like this periodically feels like a breath of fresh air.

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#214

Post by patates »

bpicolo wrote: post #95
bern4444 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah i missed those cause this is different from the demo they showed. But the point still stands. There’s not a useDtate per form field which is how react normally handles forms

Forms are one of those things that are so much easier to manage in Vue (and no extra dependencies) https://v3.vuejs.org/guide/forms.html

Two-way bindings could seem like a great idea at first, but then you start building on top of it.

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#215

Post by ratww »

Vinnl wrote: post #199
jacobsenscott wrote: post #91

So the web dev madness has come full circle - the react people just built rails in react. In the mean time I just keep using rails...

I find this "everything old is new again" such a tiring take. Sure, you can do things you could already do in Rails, but without giving up on the things people adopted React for . Like client-side updates without full page refreshes. If you fool yourself into thinking that a few similarities to what you're used to means that there's nothing new to learn, you're missing out. (To be clear, I'm not saying that everythin…

I don't disagree, but saying that people adopted React because of things like "client-side updates without full page refreshes" kinda walks right into the GP's trap: doing it it was already possible with Rails several years before React, with PJAX and then Turbolinks.

The reason people adopted React etc was not because of a few specific features, but rather because it was a completely different architecture with different pros and cons.

In practice you can do anything React does 100% on a server by sending a video feed to the client + some thin APIs, but it will have different issues and will solve different problems.

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#216

Post by patates »

tshaddox wrote: post #173
msoad wrote: post #118

I remember the team had the idea of charging for the software but now I am seeing that they raised VC money. There is no question that this sort of company can be big (See Vercel) but I'm wondering why this decision was made?

They used to openly albeit implicitly mock open source software projects taking big VC money, by saying things along the lines of “we have a radical business model where we just charge people to use our product.” Noble, perhaps, and probably a good way to kickstart community good will, but the VC money is undoubtedly a much faster way to scale the fiscal size of the company!

> saying things along the lines of “we have a radical business model where we just charge people to use our product.”

In the world of web frameworks (or maybe software libraries in general, especially those that deal with the web), I don't think it's wrong to call charging the users radical, while not totally unseen.

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#217

Post by bryans »

mirzap wrote: post #203
bryans wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. You're reversing the series of events. A user visiting a page (especially a homepage) expects it to offer relevant information in an easily consumable way. It is impossible for a user to automagically i…

I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that. Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine. I don't find this homepage annoying. It's the opposite. I find it very informative. I'll for sure get involved with remix thanks to the great presentation and first impression they had on me. I'm doi…

> I'm really glad I'm not working with UI/UX and project managers that you think would do that.

And I'm glad that I don't work with your project managers, who apparently think that choosing frameworks based on a homepage's arbitrarily "cool" presentation is appropriate methodology.

> Everything you stated is just your opinion (phrases like "anti-pattern" or "bad UX", "style over substance"), and that's fine.

Yes, when somebody says something, it's their opinion -- not sure what point you're even trying to make here, honestly. However, I provided you with specific reasons for those opinions based on decades of published research by countless developers and psychologists. Intentionally slowing down information consumption IS an anti-pattern. Making people scroll dozens of times to read one total paragraph IS bad UX. Limiting information in favor of animations IS style over substance.

Whereas your entire argument is based around the presentation "looking cool," which is an opinion not even shared by the vast majority of commenters in this thread.

> I'm doing web development and UI/UX for some time, same as people who build this (I didn't even know who built this until now). And it checks every mark in my UI/UX book.

You appear to be asserting that "you know better" because you're a web developer. However, I've been a web developer for 25 years, so your attempted posturing doesn't win you any points here. Also, there are literal books on UI/UX -- tons of them, actually -- and they all disagree with your imaginary book.

> Shared with my peers (devs, PO and designers), all think the same. Great UX.

To show you how silly that argument is, I just shared this page with some folks -- three developers and two designers, all of whom have been in the industry for a minimum of a decade -- and asked them to give me a quick "Page loads already scrolled to the bottom. Is that what it's supposed to do?"

"some shitty designers wet dream from 10 years ago"

"LOL - this is bad."

"stopped reading at: (What the heck does event.preventDefault do anyway?)"

"Garbage."

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#218

Post by ratww »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #91

So the web dev madness has come full circle - the react people just built rails in react. In the mean time I just keep using rails...

There is a lot of overlap between Rails and React, and you probably could use both to make 90% of the apps out there or more, but what really matters is the 5% that you can only make on Rails and the 5% you can only make on React. Plus the different productivity gains you can get on either for different requirements.

If you think there's a "better" solution that will supersede the other for every case, then you probably haven't seen or worked on all kinds of app that benefit from both co-existing.

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#219

Post by efdee »

kome wrote: post #178
lifeformed wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with using a familiar presentation style for what is essentially a presentation?

it's not the right format for the medium. slides are ok in class, or during a meeting - the web is different.

You're watching a presentation about a framework. What makes slides such a bad fit for it?

Re: Remix – A framework focused on web fundamentals and modern UX

#220

Post by mox111 »

bryans wrote: post #190
mirzap wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. Every information is carefully chosen, so you keep scrolling and reading. After that you go to the doc to read more. I've never seen better UI/UX that hook me in so quickly. If it was just regular page I…

> Well, on a first page without any scroll you have action buttons which leads you to the pages where you can read at your own pace. For people who don't want that they've put small bits of information on each scroll. You're reversing the series of events. A user visiting a page (especially a homepage) expects it to offer relevant information in an easily consumable way. It is impossible for a user to automagically i…

Why are you so obsessed with this "tech bro" construct?

If you are the kind of person that interprets everything as cliché, then you are liable to become one.

Post reply on HN