51–60 of 66 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.]
New best practice: do a cold launch with announcement, then call it a soft launch if bugs pop up.
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?
> a) How is one supposed to know what is clickable on that webpage? And the candidates are, look at the HTML and JS code, write a simulator that can in effect click on each pixel on the page, submit a question to Stack Overflow, click on every candidate spot on the page. May I have the envelope, please (drum roll)? And the winner is, click on every candidate spot on the page! And the winner thanks all the losers and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I can't stand design which say "you read our heading, great! Now scroll a bit to read the next 5 words" either.
It sucks but it's a great marketing gimmick. 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 ma…
The icons are broken in firefox because you used a webfont wich is hosted on another domain. Edit: Just saw that you already know about this: https://github.com/google/WebFundamentals/issues/13 --- Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at https://web-central.appspot.com/web/essentials/icons/icons.w... . This can be fixed by moving the resource to the same domain or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many words, so little sense.
Calm down and read it, actually read it, see the problem, which is HUGE, and begin to see the importance of the problem and the need for a good solution which is just a short lesson in Technical Writing 101. My first post was short, but apparently was too short for everyone to 'get it'. Apparently some people actually like in-group jargon and gibberish.
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!
It was the first time I went through an explanation of CSS layout and positioning and felt comfortable turning something on paper into a UI on screen that looked exactly how I wanted it to look. Before the book I relied heavily on trial and error. Now I can look at something, write some markup and CSS, and it does exactly what I want.
Frankly, on so many levels, this site is just fucking terrible . It would not be particularly hyperbolic to suggest that it actually summarizes much of what is wrong with the internet today. Let's see: (1) 'Web'. There is more to the internet than web. When writing content for aspiring developers, can we not accept broader and more accurate terms in their education? (2) After clicking through to a page entitled Web F…
As someone who's really ramped up their self-studying of web development over the past few months, I think this will eventually be a great resource for me and others. I've yet to contribute to an open-source project but I think this will be my first one.
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…
There's also some good technical reasons that PPK pointed out in the issue he raised (https://github.com/google/WebFundamentals/issues/20).