Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | pedrokost's comments login

I am working on a personal project: book reading logger

http://imgur.com/APYWfLn

The back-end is a Rails API, the front end is an Ember app. This was a nice project to learn Ember.

-----


Check out the screencasts to see it in action: http://xiki.org/screencasts/

-----


Hasn't anyone noticed the similarity between Axis' and Adobe's logo?

-----


Here's some blogs:

http://live.thisismynext.com/Event/Amazon_Tablet_event_live_...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/28/live-from-amazons-tablet-...

If there's a video feed let us know!

-----


Sadly it seems they've said they're not providing one.

-----


Nor can ChromeBooks run Trident or Gekko.

-----


ChromeBooks (ChromeOS, actually) isn't the market leader.

-----


I suppose many incompatibilities could be fixed simply with CSS3 PIE [1]. I've been using in a few projects now, and the results are very positive. It rarely happened that the end results was bad.

[1]http://css3pie.com/

-----


Is Google planning to monetize Plus? At the moment, unlike on Facebook, there are no ads on the site. This certainly increases user satisfaction too.

-----


There probably isn't a need to monetize it directly. If they can use it to improve search (their definition of improve) and increase clickthroughs on search ads it will more than pay for itself.

-----


The problem with image buttons like the ones shown are that they visually break when zoomed in (tested in Chrome). When I zoom in, the right side of the buttons does no longer fit perfectly with the rest of the button: it get moved by some 2 pixels up, while the rest of the button remains in place.

I've experienced this problem on many websites, that's why I try to avoid composite image buttons whenever possible. Either I create a button of only one image(which often can't be reused) or I create if with CSS3 (some compatibility issues).

-----


The problem with image buttons like the ones shown are that they visually break when zoomed in

Breaking features that paying users overwhelmingly do not use is not a showstopper for most businesses. I don't actively hate power-users, but if you're savvy enough to do anything other than open up the browser in the default settings and make with the clicky-clicky, you're savvy enough to undo it when you run into problems.

See also: "I disabled Javascript and your website broke", "I disable first-party cookies by default and your website broke", "I couldn't get your website to work on my wife's computer which I set up to run Lynx on Ubuntu Dapper" (no, really), etc.

I feel a lot worse over the related answer for disabled users, since they typically don't have an option to turn off being disabled, but the economics are the same: 100% higher development costs to improve the experience of under 1% of users is not feasible.

-----


I'm one of the people perennially angry over 'I disabled JavaScript and your website broke,' but that's limited to sites that should work fine with JS off. Like this guy's - it's a blog post. A blog post should not completely break with JS off.

What I think isn't that 'the site breaks with JS off' is inherently terrible. Some sites actually do require JS - but that's far fewer than the number that think that they require JS, and completely breaking with JS off is a very distinct code smell. It says 'this person does not sweat the details.'

-----


RE: disability, the economics are a little different, insofar as if you're a big enough target [1] it can be considered discrimination in a bunch of places.

Also, angry geeks aren't your decision-making customers/normal users, so you're not [as likely to be] foregoing revenue with them as you are with disabled users.

I don't mean this to come off as a holier-than-thou accessibility rant, but just thought the two situations were different enough to note.

1. http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1159347929235 (pun possibly intended)

-----


That economic argument against paying to help the disabled access services is the reason why the ADA was passed.

It's a tough decision where to draw the line. A purely economic decision seems soulless; accommodation of everyone will bankrupt you.

-----


> The problem with image buttons like the ones shown are that they visually break when zoomed in (tested in Chrome). When I zoom in, the right side of the buttons does no longer fit perfectly with the rest of the button: it get moved by some 2 pixels up, while the rest of the button remains in place.

Using Camino (FF3 or FF3.5 engine, something like that) there isn't even a need to zoom in: the alignment is broken by default[0], and when zooming in the button sometimes "tears" out[1]

[0] http://imgur.com/5yHZ5

[1] http://imgur.com/fCVhW

-----


Is this still the case? If so I will get it fixed. I didn't do any testing yet because the blog post was not meant to go live yet.

-----


> Is this still the case?

It is.

-----


Oh man, Camino uses Gecko 1.9.0 which is the same version Firefox 3.0 shipped with (but the buttons work in firefox 3.0).

I traced down the bug to a conflict in my blog's css with the buttons. Somewhere they are inheriting styles that break them. The code for the buttons on github does not have this problem.

I would love to fix this, but Camino doesn't appear to have any sort of developer tool. How are you suppose to debug things?

-----


Zooming as it is is a broken mechanic. Google Docs already attempts to detect if you are zooming in and tells you to zoom to 100% or things will be broken. I wish there was a reliable way to detect if the user is at a weird zoom level.

-----


Not only that, but they also break when not using a mouse. Or when white backgrounds annoy you and you reverse colours. Or in any number of other cases.

Stupid idea, but sadly popular.

-----


It seems to me that they are trying to update the interfaces to look more similar with Google+ and make them pixel perfect across all their applications.

That's why I think it is good to see all the apps change in a short time span, which makes it easier to get over the changes.

There seems to be some change regarding how they push updates and new features/designs to the world. I remember it took months of testing before they decided that the current search bar at google.com (wider and larger) was good enough. Now they really are pushing total UI revamps in 2 days.

-----


I am glad they decided to clean up the interface, but I think they made it too bright. Just looking at it my eyes hurt, and the black navigation bar adds even more contrast.

My favorite view is the WEEK view, but I've found it annoying that it doesn't provide a full day review without scrolling (I only see 13:30 - midnight without scrolling).

Furthermore the actual calendar covers only about 2/3 of the window's height, the rest are double navigation and search bar. Isn't that a waste of space?

Otherwise I love Google Calendar and use it every day. I just want it even better

-----


I am glad they decided to clean up the interface, but I think they made it too bright

-------------

yup ... my first reaction this morning was

"oh my god this is so awesome!" ... then it was

"wait ... I can't see the text in tasks that I mark as done" ... "It's not immediately clear what day it is any more" and "why is the contrast so low ... its hard to make out the gridlines"

So yeah ... everything kind of cancelled out ... the idea of the design is nice, but I think they dropped the ball on imnplementation in certain places.

-----


Definitely agree with the day & space points. Need to show more of the day, and more calendar. that search bar is fracking huge

-----


The search bar is ridiculously large, especially given how rarely I suspect most folks actually run searches against their calendar. I'm sure some people are doing it constantly but if I've even done it once I'd be surprised.

There's an awful lot of unused horizontal space in that black bar. Seems like a good location for a search box.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: