Most active commenters
  • crazygringo(3)

←back to thread

497 points tosh | 17 comments | | HN request time: 0.602s | source | bottom
1. butz ◴[] No.43536187[source]
Some controls are better left unstyled. Look what happened to scrollbars: either they are too thin to grab, have bad color contrast, so it is hard to see what part to actually grab, and, finally, some smartypants have managed even to remove scrollbars altogether from their website. Sure, default select is not the prettiest control, but it gets it job done.
replies(6): >>43536730 #>>43537510 #>>43538464 #>>43539356 #>>43540555 #>>43542772 #
2. streptomycin ◴[] No.43536730[source]
Unfortunately those unusably small or invisible scrollbars are the default in many browsers. Such as Firefox on Linux, which I'm using right now.
replies(2): >>43537081 #>>43537747 #
3. lblume ◴[] No.43537081[source]
I think this really comes down to personal preference. I also use Firefox on Linux and always find the Windows-type scrollbar to be incredibly ugly and bulky, especially on other overflow: scroll elements.
replies(1): >>43542554 #
4. crazygringo ◴[] No.43537510[source]
This is more about rich HTML for the select options. Being able to select images, rows with two columns of information, extra information in a contrasting font weight, etc. This will be extremely helpful.
replies(1): >>43538439 #
5. layer8 ◴[] No.43537747[source]
Luckily Firefox allows changing that default.
6. SoftTalker ◴[] No.43538439[source]
Unlikely. Things need to be simple and consistent. The web is already a disaster on both of those factors and has been for a long time.
replies(1): >>43538557 #
7. 65 ◴[] No.43538464[source]
I disagree. On my website I have a sidebar and a main content area. You are able to scroll through posts on the sidebar and through the content on the main content area. The sidebar is a dark color. Being able to use a thin sidebar and make the color of the sidebar dark to match the background makes the website look a lot better than having a clunky white sidebar on a dark background.

The user can still obviously see the sidebar and knows its a sidebar, it just works better with the design.

replies(1): >>43539398 #
8. crazygringo ◴[] No.43538557{3}[source]
No, things need to communicate the required information for the task at hand.

Limiting information can be harmful in many cases, and make things more difficult rather than simpler. And consistency can similarly limit usability.

What if I want to select one of 10 colors, with limited screen space? Isn't a select with color swatches perfect? Or even better, color swatches with color names beside? Why do you think that should be limited to plaintext only? That's anti-user.

replies(1): >>43538706 #
9. SoftTalker ◴[] No.43538706{4}[source]
Good example. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of different ways people have invented color pickers. Every app does it a little differently, meaning you have to stop and think about it every time. I'll take a simple select with the color name. If you want a swatch, put that off to the side and update it with an event handler on the select.
replies(3): >>43538801 #>>43538855 #>>43541680 #
10. crazygringo ◴[] No.43538801{5}[source]
Names don't fully communicate color. There are hundreds of reds. Hundreds of greens.

I don't want to have to click each green to see the swatch. Just put them in a list with swatches. That is obviously the easier UX. Nobody has to stop and think about anything.

11. nickelpro ◴[] No.43538855{5}[source]
That's objectively worse, there's no way to know what "blue" means in such a context, there are many blues.

"I want things to be worse" is not a compelling argument. Letting developers describe the needs of their applications with a consistent grammar is not unnecessary invention, complexity, or friction.

The grammars of a technology, the set of building blocks with which developers are empowered to create, should balance flexibility with expressive intent. CSS <select> strikes this balance nicely. To decry its inclusion says more about the naysayer than the feature.

12. dimal ◴[] No.43539356[source]
This ship sailed in 2000. We've been hacking custom select boxes since then, so we may as well pave the cowpath. And besides, as a user, I want stylable select elements. Seeing an ugly old select box in the middle of a site where everything is styled consistently is jarring.

And it doesn't get the job done. You can't put stuff like SVGs or complex DOM elements in them, which is a valid use case. Most of the time, when people create custom select boxes, they ignore accessibility. This will fix that issue.

13. KTibow ◴[] No.43539398[source]
Ideally web browsers would use better defaults so you wouldn't have to do this. Firefox is good with this in my opinion: scrollbars are very subtle, don't affect content width, and adapt to the `color-scheme`.
14. montag ◴[] No.43540555[source]
I may not agree with your ugly scrollbars, but I will defend your right to style them.

(If you want to annoy your users, that's your prerogative)

15. immibis ◴[] No.43541680{5}[source]
Windows had a standard color picker dialog that you may remember from Windows 98-Viata mspaint.

Jack of all trades, master of none. The mspaint-specific palette toolbar was much more intuitive.

16. BrenBarn ◴[] No.43542554{3}[source]
Exactly. It's personal preference, which means it should be the user's choice, not the site designer's.
17. userbinator ◴[] No.43542772[source]
managed even to remove scrollbars altogether from their website

What's worse are the custom JS ones that only appear on hover, obscuring the contents partially where they happen to be, and then when you try to drag them and accidentally move the pointer just a tiny bit off their skinny width, they disappear and you end up accidentally activating whatever element happens to be underneath.