31–40 of 66 posts
a) How is one supposed to know what is clickable on that webpage? b) Why are the circles not valid click targets? c) If you say this -> "To deliver the best user experience, we must deliver content as quickly as possible (<1 second)" then why does your section on Critical Rendering Path show the optimized page load in 1.5 seconds?
The mouse pointer turns into a hand?
why no +1 button?
why no +1 button?
Therefore, you should avoid using *-device-width, since the
page won’t respond when the desktop browser window is
resized.
I imagine this is because (a) their mobile sites use different interactions that require different DOM and JS, not just different CSS styles, and/or (b) those different interactions might not be appropriate on desktop even if you shrink the viewport and/or (c) it's confusing for the site to work differently when you resize your window and/or (d) they don't want to send unused JS/DOM to devices that aren't going to use it.
Any thoughts, kinlan?
I really hope this design pattern of huge fonts across the screen is a fad and will go away sometime soon. That and parallax scrolling. It's bugging me to no end for some reason. Am I alone in this?
No, I can't stand design which say "you read our heading, great! Now scroll a bit to read the next 5 words" either.
If Joe Blow managed to lift his fat finger to click and scroll - he'll be eligible to read more exciting stuff and eventually be opted-in and be sold to.
From the other point of view - scrolling down requires minimal brain cycles (i.e. where is the next link to click?) - and people love doing that to absorb the whole content without thinking.
Sort of like getting a free massage.
The advice on min-width vs min-device-width strikes me as controversial: Therefore, you should avoid using *-device-width, since the page won’t respond when the desktop browser window is resized. GMail, Facebook, New York Times, and lots of other smart folks don't show their mobile-web versions if you make the browser viewport very small. Their sites have min-width ~980px when viewed on desktop. I imagine this is bec…
For most content based sites there is not a huge amount of reason to have drastically different html, CSS or js. For apps we are yet to cover that fully.
I don't find this site to be a fundamentally good example of usability. It's not TERRIBLE, but given that they're speaking from a position of high-authority, it should be better. Three examples: (1) https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/documentation... - What am I supposed to click? The "2 guides" thingy looks like a button. No. Not clickable. But then just below are two identically colored "Create Amazing…
Certainly! Good call. We soft launched the site today and are still very actively improving things. I like your suggestions though. I broke the menu and a fix is heading out soon. I'll file the others so we can get them addressed. [EDITED.]
Most of the responses are somewhat negative (although helpful), but as a back-end'ish guy trying to learn full stack, CSS is the one thing that is nails on the chalkboard for me to learn properly. I've got this bookmarked as a reference to succinctly explain these basics; Thanks!