Checkboxes also have a fundamental dependency on the label to assist them with their affordance: a label for a checkbox should almost always be in the form of a yes/no question: “are you hungry? [ ]”
The “checked” box is an affirmative, empty is a negative. A checkbox without a label is useless because it has no context.
But I constantly see checkboxs without the question label. Think back to all those control panels and settings windows youve seen where the label for a checkbox is something like “animations [ ]”. Does that mean they are on by default? Does checking the checkbox switch them on or off?
Now compare with this “animations? [ ]” checking the checkbox has now become an answer to a question
Im not sure I agree with this, and its quite a common argument for animations in UIs. The fundamental weakness in this argument is that animations are not interactive. They have a beginning, middle and end. Any attempt to interact with the UI during this sequence would disrupt the animation. This is why animation makes UIs feel slow; clicking the widgets requires a period of time to transition from state A to state B via animation. The irony is that this is used to indicate a transition, to emulate what happens “in the real world sliders dont teleport to the next state”, but this often always misses the fact that I didnt slide the slider to its new state: i clicked a mouse button. That is an immediate state transition. So all animations like the above do is slow the feedback of the state transition in a misguided attempt to emulate a real world slider when i never interacted with the UI in any way that resembles a slider.
This is why we design animations in immediate actions to be below 100ms, any more than that and we start to feel "computer's reaction is slow maybe it's doing some calculations in the background?"
100ms is more than enough to break the joyful feeling of the computer becoming part of my own body, like a hand tool or a bicycle. Humans are adapted to tool use, and don't need to consciously think of the position of tools they're using. But this effect only works if the tool moves like an ordinary physical object. If you move a pencil, it just moves. It doesn't move and then move again because a designer wanted to play an additional animation after your movement. Until we have direct neural interfaces, all UI animation playback is unrealistic, because it's adding to the physical movement of your fingers, not replacing it.
I do find it fascinating that we are entering a time now where there are engineers who have _only_ ever used cloud services - and that they can't conceive of a era where _we used to have to do all that stuff ourselves on-prem_.
BTW this isn't a criticism - just an observation - cloud has been around now for that long. Still feels "new" to me :D
I worked in the shop which had all of these ops (app cluster, DB cluster) on premise, and they had 6 high paid people serving this, not just one, and I think there are many companies with their own sites like that.
Its not an admission fee. The website is hosted on a publicly accessible web server. There is no admission fee. The browser I am using serves my purposes; if I wish to strip certain elements from the page, add new ones or reformat the page any way I see fit, I can and am allowed to.
The point Google seem to be making quite clearly, is that the browser does not serve my needs, but the needs of Googles paying customers.
We're talking about ethics here, not laws nor what's technically possible.
You want to support the ad-funded website you keep coming to, yes or no? Yeah ideally every website would have a paid option for the HN crowd with cushy jobs, but that's not always feasible.
> We're talking about ethics here, not laws nor what's technically possible.
In that case, ads, being psychological manipulation to get users to do things they would not otherwise do, are already highly unethical. The ethical think to do is to discourage their use, which includes blocking them for yourself thus making them less profitable overall.
Have to agree with this - context is everything and there are an awful lot of naive comments here who don’t understand that XML-RPC was a breath of fresh air compared to SOAP, especially if like me you were using the LAMP stack and PHP. SOAP was abysmal- I really don’t recal a single project where communication between two systems using SOAP wasn’t without serious issues, incompatibility issues and just plain broken.
Many developers here might not recall serious compatibility issues with Microsoft- the most obvious one I recall was WebDAV ; pretty much strangled at birth by MS terrible broken implementation.
I used to use the PHP XML-RPC implementation you worked on for so many projects, so thanks for that- helped me to integrate so many projects, so cheers!
This does raise a point - do we now have to assume that all those services that provide free hosting/access/service to open source projects will be strip-mining the work of the open source community to sell them back to us all? I almost feel stupid believing it was an altruistic move to contribute back to the shoulders of giants they were already standing on...
I feel scammed too. At this point it should be obvious, but I’m finally savvy to the fact that every tech company that offers anything free, and you use it to create “your” content, is not your friend and you don’t even own the works you host with them. I feel scammed that GitHub was cool about 10 years ago. It was like the professional/cultural center of gravity in my career. GitHubbers we’re cool people. Everyone cool hosted their site on GitHub Pages. I didn’t want to see a resume; what’s your GitHub? Now I feel stupid for having contributed whatever tiny bit of brains I did to this AI by thinking that I was using the cool, developer-first code website.
No. You still have the option not to buy Copilot and still use GitHub's services for free on public projects. Or, if you're not comfortable with your open source code being perused by an AI, you can set up your own privately hosted public Git repo pretty easily.
I honestly don't understand the general outrage at this fair seeming deal to me.
