Web Developers Ruin Everything They Touch
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 02. 2024
- Don't we all love web developers, and don't we all love web developers who think they know better then estalished standard like radio buttons and checkboxes.
==========Support The Channel==========
► Patreon: brodierobertson.xyz/patreon
► Paypal: brodierobertson.xyz/paypal
► Liberapay: brodierobertson.xyz/liberapay
► Amazon USA: brodierobertson.xyz/amazonusa
==========Resources==========
Humble Checkbox: tonsky.me/blog/checkbox/
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertson.xyz/odysee
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xyz/youtube
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertson.xyz/gaming
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertson.xyz/discord
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertson.xyz/twitter
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertson.xyz/mastodon
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertson.xyz/github
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
#Web #Developer #Linux #OpenSource #FOSS
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation. - Věda a technologie
I don’t think the shape matters at all. Therefore I’d like to introduce my new concept: frameless textboxes! They look _exactly_ like labels and the only indication that it’s a textbox is the cursor 👌
I'd also like to introduce borderless buttons! Again, falling in the theme of looking exactly like labels. Unfortunately actually something that's often done in some UI design I've seen. In many cases, as a part of a dark pattern to make it difficult to realize they've provided a way to cancel something they don't really want you to cancel.
@@logicalfundy more/show less in youtube descriptions?
in fact forget buttons, lets all just do text, everything is text all the time
maybe you just being sarcastic, but... oh boy, you won't believe this
frameless textboxes are going to happen. i've seen one in website's search box
Genius! He is a genius!
My Experience: Most People don't like change. Most companies think they need change. If you can't bring anything of value you change UI. That's why so often only UI changes.
Most companies think any change at all is "innovation" 😅 and most middle managers know they're absolutely useless unless they can say HEY I DID A THING even if it's a stupid thing.
windows getting rid of the aero theme is the sole reason i use linux. i hate flat UI design, it makes my depression worse. vista and 7 were peak GUI design, very pretty
it has to say something about the importance of avoiding dumb changes if a (previously) non-power-user like me was willing to totally jump ship and learn a whole new OS just to make my desktop look a certain way
@@manitoba-op4jx I hope you get over depression. And I hate flat GUI design too
change is fine, as long as it feels familiar enough.
unless you can make hard to find stuff, easier to find. that one is always a good thing
@@robnobert One recent example is how Facebook changed how the bell looks. Or is it a sign of the times that this bell now looks like a strap-on military helmet?
If I were going to complain about web designers, I'd go after pages like Apple's where scrolling animated an image rather than, y'know, scrolling.
Or a webpage is made out of e.g. 15 pictures and no matter what you do, you only scroll one picture needing 5 minutes
to get to the bottom of the site.
it performs like shit on some devices but i personally love when websites do that. its just fun idk
@powerplayer75 It looks nice. But when you're actually trying to find information it's a nightmare. User hostile design.
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 yeah its pretty bad for that but theres usually some other technical page accompanying it with real information
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 what has apple page to do with information? i think you are barking on a wrong tree..
If checkboxes were the only thing web developers scr*wed up I could live with that :/
even people who arent tech literate notice these things, even if they don't notice them. it's a reason why consistent design language is important. even if it's not conscious, people become familiar with patterns (even when they don't exist) and use those patterns to inform their feelings about how they should act, and how they expect the world around them to react. This sort of intuition-/utility-focused school of design has been a pet topic of mine for quite a while now, ever since learning about push/pull handles making people smack into doors, and desire paths killing the grass on sidewalk corners. Design is much more than aesthetics, and it plays a much bigger role than we think in almost every aspect of our lives.
I would replace the word "even" with "especially". I'd argue that tech literate people could potentially notice tiny differences to make the correct assumption, but "regular" people will need much more explicit designs to know what is what.
Having said that, I hated that trend that Apple (possibly) started for the sake of consistency the very first time I saw it. But Apple has been on a downward spiral for years and years when it comes to GUI design. It's just one of the many sad developments in a company that was once seen as the pinnacle of good, functional and self explanatory GUI design.
I strongly prefer square checkboxes, but I can live with the round ones in some apps, as long as they have a clear "✔️" symbol inside of them. Square radio buttons on the other hand, should in my opinion be avoided at all cost and putting a checkbox inside of them (no matter of they are square or round), should be a punishable offense.
"✔" - post meets my standards of agreeableness
if you create a frame/window/page that uses both checkboxes and radiobuttons, you still have to make sure the checkboxes are squared to avoid confusion
@@dpqb-web That is a really good point, that I 100% agree with. Round checkboxes with the tick are commonly found inside Android apps, designed by the kind of people, who make everything round overtime.
It works well enough in most note apps, where radio buttons are not a thing. Google still manages to find a way to screw it up in Gmail mobile, where there are no radio buttons, but the checkboxes are sometimes round and sometimes square, depending on what part of the UI they're on.
I was once making an app for a company and they wanted me to style it according to their own branding, in which check boxes looked like their company logo. Luckily I was able to talk then out of that, lol.
It is still bad design, because you only realize it's a checkbox after you click on it. If both are round, you don't know what they are until you try to interact with them.
I'm a web developer, and I hate that this has happened. But yes, I've noticed it on occasion.
I love how people claim their "developers" and have absolutely no idea what they're doing 😂
@@Nunya58294no, see they know exactly what THEY are doing
The problem is they have no idea what everyone else is doing
@@Nunya58294 Well at least these people know what CSS is. 7 or 8 years ago I met someone at a Starbucks that claimed to be a web developer and he didn't know what CSS even was. Then again, much of this happens because CSS exists and people find they can do it, so maybe it's a good thing he didn't know what it was.
@@Nunya58294
Well, I'm only a _hobby_ web dev, not a professional one. But I know what I and others are doing, which is why my website, although looking like from my birth decade, the 2000s (at least my little brother tells me that it looks like that) is totally usable.
Have you ever got into a fight with a designer and management to prevent this shit and then ended up having to just get on and implement such crap. Because I have. It is painful.
Apple: _Think worse, but give us all of your money first._
"*While at it.... All of your information too. We'll make sure that only we get it and all others are blocked from seeing it*"
as it should@@brunoais
@@Flackon ... not. In no reality should we trust any millionaire (even less a multimillionaire) with our private information.
I feel like the problem is that UI design is graphic design, which is art.
But the "be creative and unique" mentality of art is at odds with good UI design in lots of places.
Disagree. Graphic Design is function first, art second. This is what separates it from "Fine" Art.
Advertising which doesn't sell is a failure, no matter how pretty.
UI which confuses the user is also a failure, no matter how "creative."
Much of the problem with web designers, is they don't understand this.
@@BobCollins42 But with a hostage customer (Apple) no matter if it sucks, people will be forced to suck to the last drop of the Richard sandwich.
That's the problem. UI design shouldn't be art.
This is reminding me of something I noticed a few years ago. People used to talk about UI (User Interface) a lot, but then started talking about UX (User Experience). If I’m playing a game that makes sense but for most things I don’t want using the software to be an Experience, I want to get something done.
Graphic design, as well as UI design is by definition NOT art, as Bob already said. Design is intentional, design as a purpose other than itself. The purpose of art is the art itself.
The problem is not the industry of UI or UX design, it's individuals not knowing better, or not caring enough
Something that often gets overlooked is that the shape of a button could be *very* important to those who are visually impaired (think of partial blindness). Some people might genuinely rely on the shape of the button to know what they can do with it, and they may not even notice that something is single choice when they try to select multiple choices on what looks like square checkboxes.
It's also why Check marks for check boxes, and dots or fully filled circles are even better for that matter, as an additional indicator.
+
Honestly, you just look from context, and if not, you just play around. Easy.
The only sensible solution here is obviously to deprecate both and replace them with plain text fields.
underrated post
But then the designer will remove the border and make them look like plain labels, instead. :(
Vote for acute triangle checkboxes and hypercube radio buttons!
Counterpoint: Hexagonal radio buttons. Because bestagons
Turn them into a game, where whenever you get close, they move somewhere els at random, so you can chase them around the screen and try to be fast enough to click one!🤣
@@Bob-of-Zoid Imagine an ad where you have to play pong with the close button to close it
@@qlx-i 😁🤪🤭
@@Bob-of-ZoidThat's like that one program from RJLPranks where a fake Start button would move around your screen when you moved the mouse close to it.
Hi as a web developer myself: don't pin this on us, the vast majority of those decisions are driven by web designers that think they know better and or want to be quirky and have seen x or y trend in one of their design newsletters. If it was up to me I'd just use the controls built into the browser but then my site gets rejected by QA because it does not match the design.
In my experience, this kind of change is done by inexperienced web developers and web designers only. Usually you'll get a design from a person who has never written any CSS. The classic example is messing with dropdowns. It's been a while since I messed with that, but I remember it being some of the most finicky stuff to style. So much time wasted working on a control that already worked fine in the native browser.
Part of the problem there is that most folks don't realize there's a difference between a web *developer* (the guy who generally knows how stuff works "under the hood" of the website) and a web *designer* (who mostly knows about how stuff should *look* and how to make it look that way). A typical web developer has a fairly firm grasp on the other bits as well (design, etc), but a typical web designer really doesn't *care* about anything else *except* visual appearance. In their world, how it *looks* is *the* most important thing, and often they aren't concerned with little annoyances like "standards" if those standards prevent them from achieving a particular look. Accessibility (and sometimes even security) also takes a "back seat" over visuals in a typical designer's eyes, and management tends to be more impressed by the stuff they *see* over stuff "under the hood" where they *don't* see or care until something *breaks.* (I actually got *out* of web development / design because of the great frustrations involved over such issues.)
Yep, been there, had designers that did not want a single circle on a particular project. Also can be management where design never designed radio buttons, developer gets design and the form question that clearly should be radial buttons and management does not want developer to pause while design time happens to have the designer make up radio buttons. So it is upto the poor dev to try and find some way to make it look like the design but communicate no actually these are radio buttons in nature. Also had a time where it ended up with checkboxes that looked like radio buttons.
@@BlooAlien not sure if I should be *annoyed* or *impressed* by your effective use of **bold** .
At least more people will be aware that it exists! :)
@@BlooAlienalso, designers and management say it must look the same on every platform, no native controls that adapt to match the platform they are on.
Checkboxes like that would definitely confuse me, I hate it!
Square Check Boxes should always signify Check All That Apply.
Round Radio Buttons should always signify Choose 1.
It matters to me, but I am old.
Sorry, that variance requires sending back to the copyeditor to sign off on it.
Nah, I'm relatively young and it matters to me, too.
Standards went out the window a while ago.
lmao, the flash light dark mode is really funny.
When I was a kid, back in the 90's, my grandparents had a TV (which was old even then; they already had a newer one, and they were not techy people) where the channels were picked with radio buttons. They were round. When a button was unselected, the top was black, and when selected it was filled with red. I never did understand how that colour change actually happened.
likely a mechanical shroud which split and retracted, revealing the red stud. Your finger would obscure this happening, so you'd never see it.
@@y00t00b3r I don't know if it even needed to be mechanical. Depending on the light propagating properties of the material of the button it could be that the space between the button and the red indicator was enough to hide the red bit from being seen. When the button was pushed in, the red bit was next to, or close to next to, the button so the light was able to reflect off the red and back out of the button material.
@@Tsudico good point. I was actually thinking the same thing, but I couldn't figure out to word it a cogently as you just did.
I assure you the developers are not responsible for this. It’s designers and executives who think they’re designers who force developers to do this.
remember when UI was not just about being pretty but also about legibility and accessibility?
Oh but it IS accessible. You can access it via the web.
Sadly, this was a real thing a "full stack developer" said to me
There is nothing, tell ya, nothing I hate more than the modern left / right slider where the colour either changes to something or it just slides in one way and there's literally no real indication what changed. So the green is now on the left side, does this mean it's enabled or not? What if your culture uses left side as enabled and right usually disabled? Or vice versa. AAAH.
Basically, any design of slider where the designer was overly focused on aesthetics and not enough on clarity.
yep, toggles are great, but a lot do not clearly indicate state. If it slides and there is a tick underneath the slider that is revealed, or the word "on", that works. But a lot are not that clear.
Well, in most of the western world at least, green means on, go, good, correct... and red off, no go, bad, incorrect... and on billions of electronic devices you have an LED or Light, even a mechanical color indicator for on... and no light for off...
Also: I have only seen blue for on, no color change for off (like the light method), so far not in green though, so either you are using some uncommon or custom skin or color settings, or you may be color blind and should see an optometrist. 🤔
@@Bob-of-Zoid and I see many with just blue, red or white LEDs, and go/stop is not the same as on/off or yes/no.
@@EwanMarshall Exactly where did I say those were the very same thing? I didn't!
You obviously don't know that when PC's came around there were only green, amber and red LED's, no true yellow, white, nor blue yet. You are obviously also not aware of the history behind symbolic colors: Red, the color of blood stood for caution way before the common era already and was used by many cultures like in ancient Greece, Rome and probably before them, and also by the Incas and Mayans, and green the color of thriving nature was associated with good..., and blue was always just considered a shade of green in most languages until like the 1500's or even later, and then once we understood Light it was refined to be more specific and a color onto itself, and not a shade of green for being one of three primary colors next to green and red! In 1660, Isaac Newton divided the spectrum of light into 7 colors coining a few new color names ( indigo, and violet), and ever since we have added more names for in between shades.
It's only in the last few decades companies started doing things like using all blue, green, red... putting esthetic looks above commonly used symbolic colors.
Also on the Amiga checkboxes were squares and radio buttons were circles. Amiga had more GUI conventions, like the Yes answer is always left and the No or Cancel answer is always right. There were even standard key short-cuts to trigger those answers.
I can only speak for Qt but if you use that toolkit correctly, the buttons in requesters should always be displayed in the same general area, although that can be changed, with some effort. And if I remember correctly, there are predefined identifiers for standard-shortcuts as well for all kinds of things.
Having said that, I still miss my Amigas dearly. :-(
A lot of DOS era stuff used "[X]" and "(O)". It is a system that worked well.
My Macintosh Lisa was the same, and was the first PC with a GUI, and windows 3... was the same, Next, BeOS and just about all GUI's had the same menu order, as did Amiga's "Workbench": File, Edit, view... Help (always last) and same button order with the Apply, Cancel, OK ... order and then some like the square check boxes and round buttons, and it all makes sense too, because for the most part they were based on familiar mechanical controls, in logical order of what you were most likely to do, and always from left to right as most languages are read in, and since after Apple came out with it, it was the one to compete with and have users switch to your product, so it would have been a bad idea to change the order of things and have that be a reason to not use a different product and OS by confusing users already familiar with a GUI. Once we all were used to it it was of course a bad idea to make changes just to be different, and many attempts were met with stacks of hate mail and poor sales!
I can imagine that for languages where they read from right to left they may have flipped it all around, and that would also make sense, and for Chinese just make it go from top to bottom, but I never seen a PC in Arabic or Chinese to know...
@@Bob-of-ZoidModern Chinese languages are generally written left to right due to westernisation and digitalisation, while writing top down is still accepted it's more traditional/artistic afaik
Someone correct me if I'm wrong
@@SFSAtlas I can see that.
Annoying as this may be, what i really despise is the prevalence of Infinite Scroll over selectable pagination
Pagination is fine as an option, but many sites abuse it to get more ad impressions. i.e show you a picture and a couple sentences and make you keep clicking Next when a single page article would do.
I totally agree. The infinite scroll is an utter abomination.
Infinite scrolling will not go away as it's so much easier to keep you engaged, if you ask the user to go to another page you've just prompted the user to do something else
Depends on the context. If I would use a social media app like twitter or a site-wide search feature, I would prefer infinite scroll. If you are looking at the rankings of something (top 1000 movies for example) or a list of something (users that are subscribed to this account), then probably pagination is better. I wouldn't want one OR the other.
@@twothreeoneoneseventwoonefour5
Well you don't ever get to choose & infinite scroll without a jump forward/back is usually a huge waste of my time
brodie please, the troll dark mode. it made my day and we must have this researched and more information such as: who came up with this feature? and what was their motivations or frustrations? and does that same developer have any other similar things come out? can we have an entire website made all from many such variety of troll elements?
That competition of who could come up with the worst phone number input would make your day
I didn't have this pet-peeve until now, now I'm going to get irrationally angry at this design now.
Thanks, I hate it.
As a web developer of web antiquity, it drives me absolutely crazy when web designers and/or developers think they can improve upon native control elements beyond superficial styling. I consider it a computing sin of the highest order to completely replace a native control element with some half-assed wheel reinvention. The sole exception is if a) the replacement truly adds a novel improvement impossible with the native element it's replacing, AND b) the developer *meticulously* replicated expected native behavior (tabbing, arrow keys, cursor behavior including various modifier keys if there's editable text, *all* of it). I don't think I've ever seen a native replacement meet these criteria.
I wonder if it's because websites have been styling as much as they can, which means browser devs put less effort into making unstyled websites look good, which means web Devs make their own things etc etc
Even cats know boxes are rectangles. Round "boxes" are cans, like trash cans where ideas like these need to go.
They're called checkBOXES for a reason.
Reminds me of a collection of "cursed UI elements" I saw floating around years ago, with things like a phone number entry via a slider going from 0 to 9999999999, or a name entry field where each letter was a drop-down list, or a drop-down list for months that was sorted alphabetically (i.e. the first entry isn't January; it's April, then August, then December, then …).
in javascript, months are 0-index based
As someone with the birthday in January, I approve of the new UI change overlord's.
I don't care about the shape, I think how its filled is more important: Checks/ticks/X for single choice, filled/circle for multi-choice
It’s so weird to hear someone explain radio buttons to me…. There are people who have never used a physical radio!!!
Next time I'll explain the save icon
I once saw on an exam where it was asking to pick one but used square checkboxes. Lmao
Blasphemy. It would be even worse if the question asked you to select multiple with round radio buttons.
This is the same blog of the Software Disenchantment article, that's a must read for every developer
I didn't realise how often I've used checkboxes and radio buttons in software before but this made me realise why they were so intuitive compared to most web design
I've grown up with circle checkboxes so I never noticed the difference, but desktop operating systems definitely are more intuitive to me.
I think this was inevitable because everything has become more rounded and squares can only be rounded so much.
If the design team doesn't want squares they could use sliders.
1:16 actually it was a decision of product owner, possibly against UX/UI designer advice and it probably brought web developer one step closer to an absolute burn out
LOL big assumption a UX pro was consulted at all, they're rare as hens teeth to see utilised.
By far the most frustrating part of web standards is that browsers do not follow them.
Person A: Hey cool I made this new UI!
Person B: Oh cool! I see it has yes on right, is this standard?
Person A: IDK
Person B: Cool, I'm going to assume yes!
Person C: I see that the yes on the left has been the standard since '03 for the company, so I'll do that
Person D: WHY THE FUCK ARE THE YESSES MOVING EVERYWHERE
The problem of modern development
*Some* browser vendors care more about standards than others, but then you have those mega-corporations like Google and Microsoft that actively just do as they please and just *assume* that whatever they do will *become* the "standard" way of doing it.
Great video!!! I'm older and thought this paradigm was dreamt up for the web back in the 90s / early 2000s. I never realized it was there all along in CLI GUI interfaces.
I miss the consistency of round radio buttons and square check boxes.
I'm 60 And still have my Macintosh Lisa, the very first PC with a graphical user interface (1985) and it too has square check boxes, and round radio buttons. It even has the same goofy noises modern Mac's make to this day!
Oh, and it costed more than some brand new cars did at the time 0ver $5500, but lucky for me I got it used because it was already way outdone by other PC's later in the year it was made, and the owner who could afford whatever they wanted found something more suitable for her needs and practically gave it to me: I payed $200 and gave her something her husband wasn't capable of or good at a few times!
Web browsers in the 90s used whatever the OS default was. There was no border-radius property in early versions of CSS.
Radio button are not from paper, the mimic electronic switches used in *radios* to select band in wich case only one button could be mechanical pressed at once and pressing others switched off previousle pressed, also many of them were physically round.
Check boxes are probably of paper origin.
That's what I said lol
@@BrodieRobertson I know. I wrote it before this moment.... 😅
It wasn't even an electronic button. Just a system of mechanical levers that turned the variable capacitor in the tuner.
@@RealDevastatia you're right, I used wrong term, switches and interlocking mechanism was purely mechanic.
Well, most professional web developers work in companies that work for clients - who come up with requirements, and who ignore 100% of the attempts of the developers to sort wrong usages of elements out. "We don't care, we want it to be a multiple choice radio button. Now shut up and build it or we will give someone our money who does."
I believe this is only an issue when you have a form which uses both checkboxes and radio buttons. For example mobile email clients: selecting emails is intuitive so the the style of the checkbox does not matter. But if in the settings you can select between different competing options and you can select for example folders to show it gets unintuitive very quickly.
Conclusion: Context matters
I love the sarcastic dark mode. It did exactly as stated: made the website dark. 😂
I feel the checkmark/cross vs filing is more important distinction between checkboxes and radio buttons than squares and circles.
It was really horrible to see checkmarks being used for radio buttons and no distinction between checkboxes and radio buttons.
the dark mode being a mouse orientated flashlight beam is an actually hilarious feature to include in a page where you have a lamentation rendered against over-engineered re-implementations of things that already have a well known and well documented footprint in the industry.
The vast majority of people calling themselves webdeveloper or webdesigner have lost touch with reality by leaving the W3C standards. Each and every of their websites will fail because of their 'hacks'.
When I ask them to create a cool website in XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS Level 1, and they are not allowed to use Javascript, only PHP, and both the HTML and CSS should be 100% validated by the W3C validators then they look down upon you, but in reality they do not know how to write proper code.
When I tell them to document it in RFC style, meaning in a plain text document adhering to how the rfc people do it, they don't even know what I am talking about.
To me this is a way to sift between the good coders and the junk scripters.
So it is not just radio buttons and check boxes, it is with nearly everything.
In the 80s IBM announced their "Common User Access", you should look it up. This effectively put an end to every application doing their own key mapping and how the UI should look and react. It was amazing to be able to switch between applications and basically use the same keyboard shortcuts. Doing this now is stupid, literally BONKERS!
This is a designer issue.
Not a dev issue.
Designers favor this junk more than devs.
Basically, this is to prevent bug reports. The user is not supposed to know if they could select one or multiple options.
That's right! the radial button goes in the square hole!
a neat radio button that was often in cars... rectangular button, you tune the radio to a station you like, pick a button to choose that channel, pull out the button to set it/lock it into mechanical memory.
I sometimes miss the Microsoft Metro era where the only thing round was the radio buttons. I thought they were called that because of their round (radial) shape, but the preset buttons on old radios makes sense.
Very right, never let web designers invent new designs and even more, never let web developers program something security related (like JavaScript)! :-)
Fortunately the only website I have to worry about anymore is my personal site. Don't like it? There's a "back" button.
@@RealDevastatia Many modern JavaScript-based Websites don't work with the Back-button anymore.
Like many others I've been shitting on web developers for a long time, but I have realized that it's not entirely fair. Some of them were kind of pushed into that line of work and now have to deal with shitty framework after shitty framework that is entirely undeployable unless run within a docker container or similar.
That said, this doesn't apply to most of them, so I appreciate the additional ammo to keep shitting on them!
Thanks, Brodie!
two comments: first, i think that website's flashlight mode is actually a pretty cool accessibility thing for people with dyslexia. i've had dyslexic friends and family who can't read off of their computers, because it gives them motion sickness (with their eyes doing tricks and stuff off them) and I think being able to just focus on a small part would be helpful.
and for any website that can be accessed via desktop or laptop, should absolutely use square for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons. I think on mobile platforms, it's a little more intuitive for me to just look if it's a check mark or a solid circle, and the shape matters less for the most part.
Since when does dyslexia have anything to do with that which surrounds or is nearby text? Dyslexia is entirely related to written text and written text only, if there are other things that distract people from reading correctly what is written, then it's either not dyslexia, or something else in addition. I have never heard reading giving anyone motion sickness at all, although I can imagine it's a thing, but it is not dyslexia! Dyslexia has nothing to do with your eyes doing tricks on you, but your brain, and again only specific to written text.
You are calling a number of completely separate things dyslexia which they are not, but you don't have to trust me, you can look it up for yourself and find out you are just wrong.
The only thing known to help is making fonts that make d's an b's, p's and q's... look more different from each other, and certain methods of training, depending on which of two forms of dyslexia one has.
Check boxes and radio buttons are also not known to be any different for those with dyslexia either, but due to the same familiarity reasons or poor sight as for anyone else.
@@Bob-of-Zoid i ain't reading all that tbh but dyslexia is a complex disability where many people with dyslexia have issues beyond just reversing letters or mistaking them. it can also include processing information the flow of the lines, especially with high contrasting background and text. that's why common workarounds including using a colored translucent card to put over the page, or a piece of paper to hide the lines beneath the line you're reading, etc.
also my comment with dyslexia has nothing to do with the radio buttons and check boxes. I was talking about the flash light mode at the beginning. If you struggle with dyslexia, try reading slower, or try rereading because your comprehension sucks
edit: my saying of "eyes playing tricks on you" is just a phrase jesus you might want to test for autism as well :)
@@KoopstaKlicca If you're not going to read it than STFU!
checkbox may be a square, round hexagonal, hell the box may even be imaginary,that is still okay. But radio button MUST BE ROUND AND A DOT. Putting a check inside should be a war crime
I did a Splunk training course last week. There’s something in the Splunk UI using radio buttons as checkboxes. You could select multiple radio buttons in the same group 🤦
I don’t mind the round checkboxes, as long as they continue to have a check inside. If they started filling the circle to indicate selection that would be a problem.
There is always a tension between aesthetics and function in UI. One of my pet peeves is when a UI indicates that something is Selected by only ever-so-slightly changing the tint of it. If there aren't at least two or three similar UI features next to it, there's no way to know it's selected just by looking at it. Give me a big red outline around my selection, please! But the aesthetics.
The answer? Make your apps themable. My DAW, Reaper, is a great example. I dislike some of the default UI features, but it is quite simple to adjust it yourself, and there is a large selection of community-made themes available.
I also am infuriated when a pop-up dialog on something like a TV has two buttons of different color, but you have to make a guess of which color indicates the selected one. Flip a coin I guess.
I think I wouldn't notice consciously but I would unconsciously assume a certain functionality based on that concept.
i miss the borland c++ dos IDE... sometimes I spin it up in dosbox for the memories.
He was showing the Borland Pascal interface I think. They were very close to identical but the Pascal one was definitely better. :)
@@kensmith5694Turbo Pascal 7.0 according to the caption, so yeah Borland's interface.
@@kensmith5694 i never learned pascal , just c++ in highschool in the late 90s, and we used the very same dos borland C++ IDE.
@@cericat I still have my copy of Turbo Pascal 7.0
The problem is not the developers, speaking as a web dev. I would much rather use the regular controls. The problem is the UX team and their designs.
If you use round check boxes, don't be surprised when 90%+ people tick only 1 alternative.
Circle checkboxes work fine to indicate a specific use case: when they imply an intermediate selection that would not stay on screen for a long time, like in iOS message selection UIs.
For the other instance, when user's selection remains for longer time, like in settings form, square checkboxes and round radios is the only way
Us web devs will come out with the weirdest shit but you gotta agree you won't see that dark mode anywhere else but in web
What are you talking about, I distinctly remember having dark theme in win 7. Sure it wasn't stock, but dark themes are nothing new.
@@gsgrzegorz98 I'm talking about THE dark mode featured in the video, not dark mode in general
Its something you just dont notice until you are aware of it, and you relize how annoying it was
I have a coworker who wanted that the checkbox to look like the radios in a form. I denied it.
I didn't get past managment on a couple of times I tried to deny it. It is really annoying.
I've decided that my next application will not allow direct text input, because that's not safe! Instead, users will type in by selecting a letter from a dropdown, then confirm in a popup that it is indeed the letter they wanted to enter.
As a web developer, I concur. The problem is that web development is at a point where it side-steps the entire history of software development and instead pretends that the web browser is itself an operating system, and that has produced it's own seperate culture, less practical and less mature.
I feel it's safe to say that people have started noticing that "Apple ruins everything", WRT visual design language.
Skeumorphism is a good thing, but only in certain circumstances.
Web Developer here: can confirm
My website doesn't use checkboxes, it instead uses toggles that sit on the left end of their then-red rail for off, in the middle of their then-orange rail when "indeterminate" and on the right edge of their then-green rail when on. And they show a 1 on the rail when on and a 0 on the rail when off. I don't have custom radio button designs yet, but they'll certainly be round. Whenever I use checkboxes (which is rare because most of the time a toggle fits better in my usecases)I just use the browser's native design, so the square ones in Firefox (for which I optimize my website).
If I make a custom checkbox design I'll _definetly_ make them square, as I myself would confuse them with radio buttons all the time.
So if someone is color blind and you didn't include text explaining it, what do they do?
why overcomplicate it? use checkboxes
@@freedom_7341
I don't overcomplicate it, I just think toggles work better for "enable XYZ" or for "Show password", which are the only two usecases for checkboxes or toggles I have on my website.
If I ever do a survey page I'll probably use checkboxes there. But so far toggles look better.
@@kensmith5694
Well, the position of the white knob on the darker rail and the white little "1" or "0" on the other end of the rail also are good indicators. If it has a 1 it's on, if the knob is in the middle it's "indeterminate" and if it has a 0 it's off.
There shouldn't be an indeterminate state in a checkbox. It's a toggle. The box should be either checked or unchecked by default. I use green and red on my switches also, which may be a problem for color blind people, but there are other visual cues that immediately show the effect of the toggle.
Brought to you by the same people who think "leftpad" is a library
I am okay with round checkboxes. As long as there is a tick in it and the radio buttons do not
As a decades-long web and native application engineer, you will never catch me drawing round check boxes. When you get context for free, you never want to just give it up. That's wild. Do we start calling helicopter blades wheels then?
These developers should really consider prioritizing UX design, over UI design.
I think the old "mobile first" approach was their to help promote fixing the mobile experience back when it was getting ignored too often. Now we need to start taking a "UX first" approach, so it stops getting ignored too often. "User Experience" > "User Interface".
That dark mode is pretty neat. Also, the term "dark mode" is wrong, it should be dark theme, but hey, this is the wild wild web.
This darkmode made my day
we live in a dystopian timeline, in which the dystopia is built around js ecosystem and web2
Omg. The actual standard at Wegmans is to use circles for checkboxes. I have ignored that guideline every time.
I don't think that the shape of the tick box or button are specifically important. But, if so, I do think that buttons can never be unmarked and can never be a tick; a little light globe is good. By extension, tick boxes must either contain a tick (positive) or a cross (negative).
I think this is the kind of thing that you don't *consciously* notice, but it's a visual cue that people do respond to. Or at least, they did.
I personally don't have an issue with the shape. As long as check boxes/circles have a check mark and radio buttons are filled with a gap
I mean, the fact that Javascript (and typescript) exists tells all u need to know about webdevs. From it's quirks, to under the hood & even places used... It's just something else that I'm happy to forget about.
I'm a web developer. This is stupid. Standards exist to alleviate confusion; you're *not* being innovative or creative if you're breaking them for no reason, you're making things more confusing. It'd be a different story if someone came up with a new standard that was even easier to understand.
Perhaps ask the audience on a poll and ask that those formally trained on an answer to exclude themselves
I got taught the difference between radio buttons and checkboxes in high school! :P
Conventions are important, so having a good, visual distinction between checkboxes and radio buttons is good. Even these names are conventions or standard themselves.
I'm fine with the round checkboxes, as long as the tick mark in the center is different and it's clear which one it is from the surrounding context. ie the selection in the email app shown
Appalling that the community of devs that needs a bundle of 14 MB of JavaScript to center a div would disregard standards!! What has the world come to 😱
btw this video was a breath of fresh air, how about more videos about webdev and less videos about wayland lol
Imma be honest: I have never thought of such a distinction and I couldn't care less. I just interact with the UI and gauge based on the behavior whether it's a checkbox or selection depending on whether I can only click one thing and the others get unselected or not
Same. I think this is a bit exaggerated.
Checkboxes in KDE are square, with a smaller filled-in quare inside to indicate selection (instead of a tick mark or a cross). I don't love that, I never have.
they don't notice it, but they instinctively follow it, since they have been used to it for so long
I hate the checkboxes that go left and right that are really common. I can never tell which one is on and which one is off. Just give me a box with a tick on it.
That light/dark mode toggle is a good example. If you took that button on its own without immediately seeing the effect, because usually when you change settings in menus you don't see the change while still in the menu. If it's to the left and shows a sun, does that mean click the button to make it light mode, or it's already light mode? It varies between software.
They've turned it into a fun little game
In my experience, it’s not the web developers doing garbage like this - it’s the web *designers*. Most developers I know are scratching their heads in bewilderment at crap like this but need to implement it anyeay because junior designers trying to “innovate” demand it.
Sadly, radio buttons vs. checkboxes are only the tip of the iceberg. There's also links vs. buttons. We have links that look like buttons, we have buttons that act like a link (but prevent you from seeing the URL in the status bar or middle-clicking to open in a new tab), and there are loads of examples where people reinvent established UI patterns just for the sake of looks and break any accessibility along with it. Good luck if you need a screen-reader or can't/don't want to use the mouse.
I'm a web developer myself, and I have seen the trend of forgetting/ignoring standards for many years now. Maybe because the web development landscape is changing so quickly and becoming massively wide and complex. A front-end web dev now has to handle business logic on the client and the server, know JS/TS, different frameworks and libraries, testing tools, API approaches, DSLs etc., all on top of HTML, CSS, accessibility and at least a basic understanding of design. But since business requirements mostly change on the logic side, the basics are forgotten more and more. And the things that change slower (the basics mentioned last) tend to be marginalized more and more.
All I can do is making my teammates aware of the importance of getting the basics right, of not unnecessarily reinventing the wheel, so we can hopefully make the web a better place step by step.
I use the little sliding switch shown in the dark mode example for checkboxes. Yeah, it's round, but it's obvious what it does.
Most people wouldn't consciously know the difference, they would just intuitively know which is which from past experience. Which is kind of the point of conventions...
I think the move is going towards filled (radio) vs checked or xed (checkbox). I, personally prefer the square check and round radio and usually find a different service if I think the UI sucks so I know it’s cost some people at least a few thousand dollars.
But, it’s also a hopeless battle trying to adhere standards to tech (especially web where many devs aren’t even interested in actually learning the programming language they use for their job and just wait for 3rd party libraries to do it for them).
Almost like conventions help with ease of use, accessibility, recognition, etc. Especially spacial and (very mildly) skeumorphic concepts. These things are good, they make interface "real" and "readable". Getting rid of them guarantees confusion of the user and dark patterns by the developer.
Yes! i do know how these options are multiple options or one choice by pure experience. but after thinking about the video’s content. I recognized that i had new behavior when interacting with them, If not sure, i’ll tapping other box/circle to see if other will be deselected or be multi selected.
Checkboxes are now being supplanted by snap switches. This is not the worst thing in the world (though, they're usually lower contrast, so harder to see their state); but they usually put them to the right of the label, and they counterintuitively point away from the label when they're on.
In another corner if UI design, i'm irritated by greying things out (which used to indicate a disabled control) to indicate a non-focused item.
I would prefer check boxes have a faint check mark in them like some radio buttons do, or a empty checkbox that only has the bottom of the square visible, kind of like a plate or bowl. Many times check boxes and radiobuttons are both too small to distinguish for someone with even only moderately poor vision. The lack of contrast possible in small areas makes both designs sort of hard to read.