Jump to content

ekket

Administrator
  • Content Count

    736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. That does sound exactly like the "Embrace, extend, extinguish" phrase to me, though that may be a bit outdated now. Also, the Linux kernel is GPLv2, so there's only so much they could do. That only becomes a problem with permissive licenses, e.g. MIT (like FreeBSD has). I don't think changing the kernel outright would be very feasible for consumer builds of Windows, since backwards compatability is still extremely important for Microsoft (feel free to prove me wrong, however; they did want to change the ecosystem with UWP).
  2. I hope to have this site archived, should something of that nature happen. (Memento mori.)
  3. If we are considering the "runway vs helipad approach", then Fitts's law is something that is very important. It provides a fundamental model of UX interaction and states that "the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target." It can easily be used to justify some of Ross's ideas, such as pie menus and hot corners (the browser shortcut he showed). I would argue that the efficiency of mouse gestures is very dependent on their design. For one, they are able to match the user's actual motions to what they intend to motion. They also need to be considered in terms of (a) what are the most commonly used gestures and (b) what are the easiest gestures to motion. I think that where mouse gestures tend to suffer is in discoverability (like CLI commands), but demanding too much precision I think is a non-issue in a well thought-out system. An interesting result of Fitts's law is that the edges of computer monitors can be considered to have infinite width (that also goes for double with corners, where the edges effectively collide and have infinite dimensions). So effectively, the dock shortcuts are infinitely tall because they do not require a deceleration phase. This means that one can be very efficient with orienting their mouse to the given application and opening it. The edges, along with the corners, are your most valuable real estate. Anecdotally I would also like to add that I don't ever use the Alt-Tab menu in conjunction with the mouse, rather I use it one-dimensionally with the keyboard, mainly because that would require me to (a) hold down Alt-Tab and release Tab, (b) look at the previews and identify what I want, and (c) orient my mouse to the application and press the button to open it. That is much more complicated than just pressing Alt-Tab however many times until I see the application I want. Recommended reading on Fitts's law: Visualizing Fitts's Law — A good introduction When You Shouldn’t Use Fitts's Law To Measure User Experience — Some pitfalls and possible solutions A Quiz Designed to Give You Fitts — This article uses examples to give you a great understanding of the underlying concepts
  4. Ross mentioned it on his Twitter: He also mentioned livestreaming himself going through all the games to see whether they are worthwhile or not.
  5. One way to solve it would be to add posts to quote through the plus button on the bottom-left (‘MultiQuote’). You can also @ people, like @Ross Scott (that does notify them at least). I agree that this WYSIWYG editor isn't the best, though I don't think there's a better solution with this framework. (Just don’t feel forced into underlining text, that’s the worst.) EDIT: Forgot to also mention that you can insert two line breaks inside a quote to break it up. Anyway, I would not mind hearing about better solutions for all this (hopefully they can also work with Invision Community).
  6. It won’t die without bringing us down with it.
  7. Going by your tenets of GUI design, I would rather say that having your hands on the keyboard all (or at least most) of the time is the ideal. For one, I use Vim (Neovim actually) as my text editor (even using it to edit this) and try to use the keyboard for everything I can get away with (see qutebrowser for a great browser with Vim keybinds). There is a learning curve to it, but it can make you look like a wizard when you’ve mastered it, so it evens out. To that end, I think that tiling window managers (WM) are the way to go. As the name says, they tile windows, usually doing so based on keyboard shortcuts and the concept of workspaces. There are some great workflows ([1], [2]) using tiling WMs, but their userbase is mostly people who are comfortable with CLIs, so not your kind. (Both of these examples are on r/unixporn, a good place to look for nice-looking Linux setups—EDIT #1: Though looking at the recent posts, it does get samey.) Where tiling WMs do succeed is in getting out of the way, and that’s where I think GNOME 3's shell also succeeds. Now, you might get the impression that it’s meant for touchscreens, but it really is keyboard-driven—so much so that it’s actually pretty inefficient to use the mouse! Like tiling WMs, it also relies on workspaces (of which you can have an unlimited amount). One very important key is ‘Meta’ (or ‘Windows’, if you’re on Windows), which opens up an overview with windows, apps, and a search bar for launching them (though you could bind that to a mouse key, which could make things more efficient). EDIT #2: I also forgot to mention that they also forego the icons on desktops and buttons for minimising and maximising (because you have dynamic workspaces, all you'd need to do is to close them, you can double-click anywhere to maximise them too). The workflow is unorthodox (it goes away from the traditional desktop metaphor to a sort of ‘canvas’ for the programs) and does have a learning curve, but I think it’s very much worth it. The video linked above explains it better than I could. Now, the customisation isn’t that great (use KDE if you want to go to town with the settings), and some basic features aren’t included by default (they only recently added application categories and Gnome Tweak Tool is still quite necessary), but I really like an opinionated shell with innovations beyond the Windows 95 model of user interfaces. As for what I use, currently that’s three different interfaces: the default shell on Windows 8.1 (with Classic Shell, a custom theme, Everything, and Cygwin for my own sanity), the aforementioned GNOME 3 and bspwm (both running on NixOS and also on test drive until I have to courage to entirely migrate to Linux); all of them having a Quake-style drop-down terminal which is pretty essential for my workflow. Also, regarding fonts, I do like Fira Sans (after all, I chose it for this very website!) and Inconsolata. Lastly, I do appreciate you fighting the fight against entropy on this; don’t let chaos win out!
  8. Personally, I prefer your videos with more “food for thought” (see: SPIDERBOT, the apocalypse in Trackmania²) or just something cool to show/look into (like an American roadtrip or time-travelling composers). Save for a few segments, this episode was pretty devoid of either of those things, doing little prior research into the game. That, along with the commentary complaining about the poor game design resembling a reaction video, made this feel more like a Let's Play and not the bewildering tour show I’m accustomed to seeing from you. Actually, this sort of game would be way better for streaming, like you did with The Lecarde Chronicles. Alternatively, I’m thinking that some new format could prove beneficial for this. I know a lot of people (incl. myself) didn't like Moon Gaming, but I think that a shorter and more scripted variant of that could be a winner for something like this game. EDIT: I was probably being too harsh with the criticism in this post, I admit. I at least hope that I am being helpful with pointing out what I myself really love about the videos. On the whole, I think this episode was good for tiding people over, but that the game didn’t have enough material for the standard ’Game Dungeon’ treatment, hence why I think experimenting with it a bit more would be good. I’d love to see what you could do with that! To my knowledge, it's custom-made for the series, so what you hear is what you get.
  9. May I point you towards the original Elite from 1984? It had procedural generation based on a single seed (simple method for having it generate the same thing every time), which made it possible to explore 8 galaxies with 256 planets each (originally they intended to have 2^48 galaxies, but that would have become repetitive). Granted, that was for 8-bit computers, and so pretty limited, but every planet and star system was indeed unique.
  10. @kerdios Alright, then my guess of it being influenced by the layout engine (Gecko for Firefox) is true; I only tested it on Chromium's engine (via qutebrowser, if anyone cares). I'll do some troubleshooting later to hopefully resolve that issue. EDIT: I was indeed able to reproduce that issue on the latest Firefox running on Linux as well, forgot to mention that.
  11. I guess we won't be seeing an end to Freeman's screaming any time soon. I hope you're not harming your throat any.
  12. No, thanks for informing me. I currently wasn't able to trigger it (copied the last image from this page and pasted it with CTRL-V). Could you give me some steps for reproducing that issue (and also the browser you're on, since that may affect it, though that's unlikely)?
  13. I've recently implemented lots of stuff, mostly behind the scenes to make the codebase less ugly. Main changes: more consistent typography; nicer layout and navigation on mobile, much less of an afterthought; improvements for readability.
  14. You can very well do that, see accursedfarms.com/donations.
  15. Alright, good. The more the merrier.
×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.