- In the header, it looks like you're using the same text style for the inactive navigation links as the helper text ("Logged in as").
- Icons should be used to help clarify things, but most of the icons seem to be just arrows pointing right on links. You can probably omit them!
- In the source tree, I had no idea I could click on the file names until I hovered over them by chance. Blue text alongside black text is a very strong signal that the blue text is a link and the black text is not. (Also note that in the file path at the top, the ancestor directories are blue and clickable while the current directory is black and not). Here is where an icon would be useful: to disambiguate between directories and files.
- Not a visual UX issue, but an accessibility one: for whatever reason, keyboard navigation doesn't work for me in Firefox.
In general, just try to have consistent styles for things, and consistently different styles for different things. Links should look like links, not unclickable text. It's okay if you take a bit of artistic license in specific places (like the main navigation) but things should at least be internally consistent within that place.
>Icons should be used to help clarify things, but most of the icons seem to be just arrows pointing right on links. You can probably omit them!
I discussed my opinion on icons in the article, and I stand by it in this case.
> the source tree, I had no idea I could click on the file names until I hovered over them by chance. Blue text alongside black text is a very strong signal that the blue text is a link and the black text is not. (Also note that in the file path at the top, the ancestor directories are blue and clickable while the current directory is black and not). Here is where an icon would be useful: to disambiguate between directories and files.
Good point. I don't want to add an icon, but I should make filenames underlined or something like that.
>for whatever reason, keyboard navigation doesn't work for me in Firefox.
That's bizarre, it works fine for me. Can anyone else reproduce this?
Re: icons, sorry if I was unclear — I'm not suggesting you add more icons, and I think your opinion in the article is good! I'm saying that it's not obvious to me what the right arrow means specifically, and (IMO) it's common enough that it adds visual clutter. For example, in the tree summary, "browse" and "log" have the right arrow, but the repo URL under "read-only" doesn't, and it's not clear why.
- In the header, it looks like you're using the same text style for the inactive navigation links as the helper text ("Logged in as").
- Icons should be used to help clarify things, but most of the icons seem to be just arrows pointing right on links. You can probably omit them!
- In the source tree, I had no idea I could click on the file names until I hovered over them by chance. Blue text alongside black text is a very strong signal that the blue text is a link and the black text is not. (Also note that in the file path at the top, the ancestor directories are blue and clickable while the current directory is black and not). Here is where an icon would be useful: to disambiguate between directories and files.
- Not a visual UX issue, but an accessibility one: for whatever reason, keyboard navigation doesn't work for me in Firefox.
In general, just try to have consistent styles for things, and consistently different styles for different things. Links should look like links, not unclickable text. It's okay if you take a bit of artistic license in specific places (like the main navigation) but things should at least be internally consistent within that place.