On Safari (iPad), type something in the search bar. If you accidentally click outside of your keyboard it will deselect the bar and delete everything you typed. On Spotify the three little dots to do some action to a song have too small of a hitbox. Press even the slightest bit under the button and it will start playing the song. You'd never click there to play the song. When you consider the scale of these apps, the…
Sanding UI
21–30 of 414 posts
Re: Sanding UI
#22 It’s kind of a QA tactic in a sense
It's not kind of a QA tactic, this is literally the definition of QA. Specifically, this post is about ad-hoc functional testing. Kinda funny how this kind of testing used to dominate, but in the era of CI/CD, dedicated QA departments, and fancy webdriver suites, we've flipped too far the other way, and developers need to be reminded to QA their own stuff!I think we've all learned the hard way that nothing works until it's been fixed, no exceptions... no code comes off the dome flawless.
Re: Sanding UI
#23Re: Sanding UI
#24I think the article has good sentiments about it. Actually using your application a lot helps polish it down a ton. However, wouldn't putting the input inside of the label (before the label text) be a better solution than fiddling too much with CSS and flexbox? It's more foolproof to ensure clicks within the label activate the input, and eliminates the need for the "for" reference.
Re: Sanding UI
#25I think the article has good sentiments about it. Actually using your application a lot helps polish it down a ton. However, wouldn't putting the input inside of the label (before the label text) be a better solution than fiddling too much with CSS and flexbox? It's more foolproof to ensure clicks within the label activate the input, and eliminates the need for the "for" reference.
The one potential downside to doing it the way you describe is (assuming the same CSS flexbox layout) now all the white space on the right side of the label acts the same as clicking the radio/checkbox. Which is almost like the opposite problem to the original issue.
This might actually be a good thing for some designs/contexts, but not always. For example, on mobile it might lead to miss-clicks while trying to scroll past the s
Re: Sanding UI
#26Re: Sanding UI
#27On Safari (iPad), type something in the search bar. If you accidentally click outside of your keyboard it will deselect the bar and delete everything you typed. On Spotify the three little dots to do some action to a song have too small of a hitbox. Press even the slightest bit under the button and it will start playing the song. You'd never click there to play the song. When you consider the scale of these apps, the…
Re: Sanding UI
#28Re: Sanding UI
#29
Foo
Re: Sanding UI
#30On Safari (iPad), type something in the search bar. If you accidentally click outside of your keyboard it will deselect the bar and delete everything you typed. On Spotify the three little dots to do some action to a song have too small of a hitbox. Press even the slightest bit under the button and it will start playing the song. You'd never click there to play the song. When you consider the scale of these apps, the…
UI/UX standards in general are dogshit in most modern software. It's actually baffling how nobody bothers to do even the most basic polishing of their application as the OP. Like they note, clicking around for 10 or 20 minutes would reveal many imperfections, not to mention actually having testers and experiments and any semblance of a scientific design methodology.
Is a feature finished when the code works? When the pull request is merged? Or when a feature works well?
I also believe there’s a lack of care. The difference between a craftsman and anyone else is care.