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

291–300 of 307 posts

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

#291

Post by austinthetaco »

bryans wrote: post #243
gherkinnn wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer this presentation over a PDF or a video. It works and I like it. You don't, then move on. Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way to engage with something you don't enjoy.

> I prefer this presentation over a PDF or a video. It works and I like it. You don't, then move on. I could say the same thing to you -- if you like it, then move on. Nobody is forcing you to read my comments, and it is antithetical to the concept of a public forum to assert that I shouldn't be allowed to comment just because you don't agree with me. > Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way…

Analyzing usability metrics is not in the purview of a developer typically, especially not for random tech tools.

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

#292

Post by austinthetaco »

franga2000 wrote: post #257
efdee wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Slides are presented to you, web content is something you read. Slides can have more graphical elements and animations because they don't carry the full information load - most of that is spoken. You wouldn't do a presentation by giving out flash drives with the slide deck and then leaving.

and in this instance the slides on the website are also not the full informational load, the docs are.

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

#293

Post by couchand »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #269
couchand wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another way to look at it is you just removed 300 lines of buggy redundant code into one line that does exactly the same thing but without all the fuss. And now that your code is so small you can understand it better, and test it. Maybe I'm missing something critical here, but the code doesn't go away, does it? You still have to have the AJAX implementation, it's just that instead of the intention-revealing interfa…

I believe you are arguing that high level languages shouldn't exist. :) Did you write the driver that you call when you do HTTP request through a TCP/IP stack? No? You just swept it under the rug! I kid, but I honestly don't understand your resistance. You don't seem to want to let go of some kind of anchor, referring to it as "magic properties." While I argue you already are letting go at so many other levels. It is…

If the code was buggy, fix the bugs. If the code was truly redundant, you could delete it. I suspect you meant more that it was repeated in several places, in which case, of course refactor it to be more DRY. If you can write an abstraction that provides a consistent mental model and relieves programmer burden, then do it. None of that is in dispute.

My point is rather one of interface design. This is about communication with other developers. Help them out! Give them affordances to make their lives easier. Leave clues so they know what's going on.

A developer coming up to your template that just says {{ stockPrice }} has zero chance of knowing that this is going to secretly issue a network request. If it looks like a field reference, people are going to assume it has roughly the same characteristics as a normal field reference. That's an eminently reasonable assumption -- don't violate it.

Everyone would be surprised to see that take several orders of magnitude longer because it needs to touch the network. Everyone would be surprised to find out that they can't include that field in a template that might possibly be rendered when the user has no network connection. When things do something different from what they look like they're doing, it's surprising.

Don't surprise people. Make life easy for them.

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

#294

Post by areeh »

bryans wrote: post #160
danr4 wrote: post #18

I usually have deep hatred towards scroll-jacking but this was actually quite well done. Not because of the pizzazz but because it essentially put only one thing to learn on the screen at once. It was like a "getting started" section that might be slower to go through but feels like it's faster to understand.

I disagree wholeheartedly. This site breaks every UI/UX rule in the book, and in the worst ways. Instead of just letting people read the information at their own pace, they've decided to limit the information to one partial sentence at a time, and more than half of those sentences are just irrelevant jokes. Possibly even worse is the lack of snapping to the sentence, which means the user has to guess how far they nee…

I can see how it scores poorly on the number of scrolls per paragraph of information, maximum words read per unit of time, etc, but clearly that is intended with the choice of spacing and font size which is different in the docs (typically optimized for providing information, similar to what your metrics seem to try to measure).

I think it is more usefully analyzed as a landing page, with a lot of emphasis on how it looks, at the deliberate tradeoff of the text being harder to access.

On the practical side, personally I'd expect to find docs, getting started, and source repo which I found immediately.

Some surprises though: I didn't notice the scroll until after looking at links (intended?). The way some elements disappeared if you scrolled just slightly past them entering the page. I didn't find the scroll jacking surprising after first seeing it, I read it as "not a normal text document" shortly after.

Of course you might in the end not care for the visual side, or not expect it to come at such a great expense in terms of scroll # or similar metrics. I think that's a risk they take with this kind of page.

edit: typo

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

#295

Post by bryans »

austinthetaco wrote: post #291
bryans wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer this presentation over a PDF or a video. It works and I like it. You don't, then move on. I could say the same thing to you -- if you like it, then move on. Nobody is forcing you to read my comments, and it is antithetical to the concept of a public forum to assert that I shouldn't be allowed to comment just because you don't agree with me. > Counting "scrolls" (whatever that means) can't be a healthy way…

Analyzing usability metrics is not in the purview of a developer typically, especially not for random tech tools.

What a ridiculously untrue and narrow-minded statement. If you've only worked at companies where you're one tiny cog amidst ten thousand employees, sure, you may have a designer or psychologist who specializes in UI/UX analysis. However, that does not describe the VAST MAJORITY of tech teams, and frankly, any frontend developer who isn't analyzing their output or at least taking a moment to think "hey, maybe 39 scrolls is too much for this task," doesn't really care about or understand what they're doing.

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

#296

Post by chrisweekly »

micahbule wrote: post #288
chrisweekly wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "you cannot construct a custom route on the client-side without adhering to the core concept of building your routes based on the pages directory." Actually, that's not true. You can opt out of the fs-based routing altogether.

I'm not aware of said functionality on the client-side. Out of curiosity, do you mind linking me to said documentation or article on how to circumvent routing on the client-side without using fs-based routing?

https://nextjs.org/docs/advanced-features/custom-server#disa...

> "You may also wish to configure the client-side router to disallow client-side redirects to filename routes; for that refer to router.beforePopState."

https://nextjs.org/docs/api-reference/next/router#routerbefo...

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

#297

Post by ducharmdev »

couchand wrote: post #256
ducharmdev wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really new though? MVVM .NET apps similarly use getters & setters in this manner, except with XAML.

I've never seen .NET code that has magic properties hiding expensive operations, though my .NET experience is admittedly limited. Is that idiomatic?

Maybe so; it's pretty normal to expect a property setter to perform additional operations, as it's necessary for making data binding more manageable among other things. But using Go to Definition takes me directly to the getter/setter, so imo it's not exactly hidden.

I think it becomes problematic (or more magical) when these network/database/expensive calls are made willy nilly throughout an application, without a dedicated class or layer to aggregate these kinds of operations. If you have things architected correctly, it's not a big deal to trace these kinds of things throughout your app.

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

#298

Post by ksec »

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!

I think this is the first time ever these type of Page Scrolling dont heat up my MacBook Pro 2015 at home. And it is fairly smooth.

On my iPhone it is even better.

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

#300

Post by PKop »

hnbad wrote: post #195
PKop wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because this sort of company can be big

If this sort of company is vercel, sure. But right now remix has no obvious monetization strategy. It seems obvious they'll announce a SaaS solution eventually but it's not clear what the value add will be.

Yes and Michael, one of the co-founders, already mentioned doing this in his introductory live stream this week. I did mean can be, and certainly this is why they went this route, but no it isn't a guarantee. But even as simply a "javascript framework", selling licenses and being closed source was a good way to bootstrap, but open source and taking money that someone wants to give you is probably the only way to be viable longer term and get traction and commitment from users.
Post reply on HN