Hacker News Reader

Comment by gemstones | Hacker News Reader

Can the people that want this HTML-first world style it to look the ways they want themselves?

My experience has been that proponents of HTMX and the like skew heavily backend and never feel comfortable with CSS.

Why listen to UX thoughts from a population who are scared of UX?

This strikes me as a cynical take. Having floated between backend and frontend a lot, frontends naturally tend to become very complex; even before the web. And with three different Turning complete stacks (HTML+JS+CSS) the web already feels pretty heavy before adding in another stateful framework and build tooling to support them.

Folks can disagree about how to keep the system simple when looking at it from different points of view. All those opinions are worthy of consideration.

JS frameworks seem inevitable. Any time I've worked with native JS in a reasonable size projects, it becomes necessary to create libraries and common conventions, that starts to look like something approaching a small framework. A framework is just common patterns for solving problems. I think what a lot of developers object to is the stack of build tools required to transpile, bundle and link code together when using these frameworks, in addition to the complexity that comes with dependency management, rather than the use of the framework themselves.

I’m not able to make a page look nice (or even decent) without a CSS framework. But I think I’m at least OK at understanding how to make the interactions and workflows follow the “Principle of Least Astonishment”.

In other words, I’m not scared of UX in general, just not confident in my current abilities in UI (which is just one aspect of UX).

Having worked with it for 20+ years I've just been left convinced that the biggest mistake frontend dev has made in that time is to pretend that CSS is a language that should be 'engineered' instead of a design flavour that should be build up / torn down lightly on demand. It's esoteric corners should have been fixed and simplified so designers could learn and explore design through markup as needed, rather than double-downed on to where we are now.

Here to bust your assumptions. I skew backend but love CSS, and am one of the better UX engineers I know of. I also dislike javascript a lot, and find that the htmx approach cuts a significant amount of complexity out of your app (e.g. your views can talk directly to your daos.)

I’ve met enough people that aren’t like you that your lived experience, real as it may be, doesn’t really change my opinion much.

For every one of you who isn’t scared of CSS there are like 40 people into HTMX that make bad UXs even by the standards of internal company tooling.

Similarly for every React/$oftheday dev who creates a snappy, race condition free, spinner free, app that feels almost as snappy as the web prior to React/$oftheday, there are 40 who create sluggish, unmaintainable tyre fires.

What literature exists on UI and UX that isn't condescending or clueless in tone?

Interfaces are as unique as humans are. There's a reason we have emacs, vim, and Notepad.

Refactoring UI fits those constraints. While it's by the creators of tailwind, it doesn't make assumptions about the css you use to achieve your desired UI.

https://www.refactoringui.com/

Thanks for giving me something interesting to consider! This looks like an earnest product that could help me at least understand where others are coming from on design, and could probably add flavor to my own UI focus (gamedev).

I don't often have a positive reaction to something like this, will definitely revisit it when I have the spare cash.

I am very happily listening to UX thoughts from people who specialize in UX.

What I am decidedly NOT happy with, is the frontend using as much, or even more, internal logic, magic, and build steps as the actual business logic.

To put this another way: I will happily listen to an interior designer on his thoughts about the color of the drapes. But if he tells me that this color means he has to bring his own crew of stonemasons, carpenters, and electricians, because somehow that color requires massive changes to the architecture and power lines of the house, I am going to grab a piece of cloth that vaguely has the color I want, and make the drapes myself.

That applies to backends equally, but you don’t get thinkpieces on how that makes it a great idea for frontend devs to avoid all those silly DTOs and design patterns that complicate the server code.

You do though. Hating on the cloud is pretty popular as well.

But in the end, because of nature of things, slugish frontend has bigger affect on user's experience then slugish backend.

It applies to everything, everywhere.

Overly complicated, architecture-astronaut code, that leans on frameworks for no good reason, is bad, no matter what part of the stack. And yes, this is true for the backend as well. There are people who will happily import 3 different frameworks to make a POST request in Go.

To be fair, most UX "experts" are too busy chasing interfaces that are "inclusive", i.e. built for toddlers.

Show me a powerful program with a "good" UI by modern standards and I'll show you a mess. VS Code is a prime example.

Interesting example. Why would you say VSCode is a mess? I feel like it's not in line with the current UX Zeitgeist I assume you're referring to (touch-first, wasteful whitespace, manipulative patterns, reduced functionality) at all. It provides multiple layers of access to functionality that allow the user to choose their trade-off between discoverability and speed. The UI is compact with very little padding and shows a lot of information at once. No affordances to touch input are made either.

Another powerful tool that is built on modern UX principles would be Fusion 360. In my experience, it makes me as a user much more powerful and actually provides more functionality in a more productive manner than its competitors and predecessor. Would be interested in you explaining how that UI is a mess as well.

VS Code is a mess because there are few places I can click in the UI without triggering some weird part of the UI. Almost the entirety of the bottom bar is reactive. The sidebar has too many views to keep straight, it has an extension store or something? Using VS Code feels like handling a tool with no handle. I'm sure it has something useful but I feel overwhelmed and constrained when I use it. I can't depend on any of my prior UI exposure to effectively navigate VS Code without taking my head out of the code. It's simply too much on screen at once and relies on visual iconography which will NOT result in the same ideas conveyed between different users. VS Code feels like it's meant primarily for the enterprise, on projects that are massive and have extensive SOPs. I tried to adapt some of my development to it, just to try it, and bounced off really hard.

I'm really just more at home in Vim and a terminal window off to the side. Microsoft's way of doing things has never really clicked.

I can't speak for Fusion360 because I don't know what it is nor have I used it. There's just an issue in UIs these days where they're either toy-themed (Twitch, Discord, Etcher, other "friendly" software) or so overwhelming that you don't know where to start.

Where is the QuickStart guide for VS Code, for developers? With MS in particular, they do a poor job of reaching out to developers and actually understanding how they work or what they like. Maybe they only serve a particular type of developer; an audience that I'm simply not part of.

I find the silence that accompanies the negative score above to be rather damning of this community. I was asked why I felt the way I did, and I explained it. If you have a problem or disagree, show it in the comments.

Visual iconography doesn't need to transmit the same ideas to different users, it's there to reduce space taken but still be identifiable to an experienced user of the tool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com