Maybe webdevelopers should stop trying to make everything look different from its defaults. It used to be that you could reliably predict what clicking the mouse in a region of the screen would do. It wasn't progress, when webdevelopers threw that out...
It's not always only about custom theming. There is a ton of functionality that is simply lacking in web standards. If you want default behavior, feel free to use an unstyled or minimally styled <table> element. But it's not going to have any live searching or filtering, the ability to handle enormous numbers of rows and columns (as can be done with virtualization in JavaScript), draggable rows and columns, resizable columns, etc. Sure, it's fair to say "too bad, I don't care about those features anyway" or "too bad, no one gets to use those features on the web until web standards and browsers decide to implement them," but I don't think that's a useful attitude.
Define "those things," and then tell me what "those things" would be defined at before, say, live search came along. Because however you would have defined search boxes would not have allowed for the development of live search.
Iteration is what brings us progress that we enjoy, while also bringing with it the headache of reinventing the wheel over and over again. Both go hand in hand.
This seems to be a constant meme repeated in every single thread which dares to mention modern web development.
I don't know if it's because the HN community is dominated by backend developers who think UIs are pointless and should be generated by code, but it's really annoying.
No, we shouldn't be stuck in a rigid framework of shitty premade components with zero customizability.
Modern web interfaces can be designed to be user friendly, performant, and good looking.
Try marketing a web app which looks like a Java applet from 2003 and let's see how many users you get. As much as so many developers hate to admit it, things looking modern, polished and well designed is important.
> Modern web interfaces can be designed to be user friendly, performant, and good looking.
Right. Name three examples that are all this, and still considered "good UX" by webdev standards.
> Try marketing a web app
Herein lies the real issue. And it predates the web. I recall a piece of documentation of Windows around 3.11 era, where the developers already threw their hands up in the air over realizing that, no matter how good, powerful, integrated and interoperable components they design, they can't insist on people using them, because marketers gonna market and suits will want their apps to be unique and branded and shite.
I like https://airtable.com/, https://linear.app/, and https://height.app/. They are all pushing the limits of interactive web apps, not always entirely successfully, but the overall product experience is mostly smooth and polished. I wouldn't really be able to say what it means to be "considered good UX by webdev standards," but I develop for the web and I like these three.
> they are all pushing the limits of interactive web apps
I wonder if you realise that "pushing the limits of interactive web apps" has about as much functionality as Norton Commander/DOS Navigator from the 1990s?
It's a damning fact for the web platform that what is "pushing the limits of interactive web apps" is literally nothing more than tables and lists.
I absolutely realize that! And indeed, that’s the whole point: to have web apps with the rich interactivity, responsiveness and performance, accessibility, etc. of good native apps. We’re really not there yet, but we’re making progress.
They look so awesome... wait... neither of them has a working demo at the top of the front page. There is no need to try to talk me into loving something - it wont work. Just show me as many working demos as it takes and show me code. Clearly I'm not the audience. Happy it works for you tho :)
I’m not trying to trick you into liking something and I wasn’t intending to provide demos. They require creating an account because they are serious productivity tools, not cute demos.
Maybe browser vendors should provide defaults that don't suck. The whole existence of Twitter Bootstrap is testament to the fact that browser makers were asleep at the wheel.
Platforms exist to support applications, not the other way around. Applications weren't born wanting to reimplement the native controls, they did it because the native controls are not only uglier but also less usable and hopelessly inconsistent between different platforms.
I understand what you're getting at, but that ship has long since sailed. It's also important to note that changing the look of elements doesn't necessarily mean making their functionality indecipherable. Bad design will always be possible, restrictions to try and stop it are pointless.
For the record...the issues you mention were initiated by former print designers, turned wannabe web designers.
No one should underestimate the percentage of "web designers" who don't know the difference between a span and a div, or the damage that level of ignorance is doing.
FFS, I still see PSDs (which is a silly format for web design) - already approved by clients - with small (read: difficult to read) font sizes, in a color that's low contrast with the background color (read: even more difficult to read).
Don't blame the developers some of this do push back. Unfortunately, "the creatives" too often have more juice.
> Don't blame the developers some of this do push back. Unfortunately, "the creatives" too often have more juice.
It's so bizarre how developers are simultaneously considered 1. powerful in the job market, highly in-demand, with companies competing for talent, and 2. totally powerless to push back against dark patterns, privacy invasions, and poor product or design choices.
I mean has anyone even tried saying "You know what, I'm not going to implement that. I'm a professional, too, and in my judgment it's [ridiculous | unethical | poorly thought out | whatever]. We need to negotiate it down to something better."
Not going after you in particular, but I see this "developer power" dichotomy all the time on HN and it's kind of hard to understand.
There is an implicit assumption here that developers have a better understanding of these issues than the rest of the people involved. My experience is that many developers are clueless about UX in general.
Source: I'm a developer, and I work with other developers. On my team I'm the only person who has studied UX design, which resulted in me getting considerable praise for the quality and useability of my user interfaces. At the same time, I have seen my colleagues design interfaces by literally adding controls to a window in the order they implemented the features, starting in the top-left, and moving slowly down the page in a row by row fashion. Well, that's also a strategy...
The real problem is that most designers just like drawing pretty pictures, and are clueless about UX as well. Pushing that to developers is one option, but it's really a separate skillset.
I don't specifically want to include origin in this discussion, but I have never experienced this myself. And I think it might have to do with my (Dutch) culture, or that I am freelance and my clients trust me to do the right thing.
When one of my clients think of something which doesn't work for whatever reason they want me to say no to them. And it doesn't hurt our professional relationship, I will explain them why it is a dumb idea (not in those words of course :-)) and we figure something out that does work properly. They appreciate me being direct and selling them no and they request it themselves.
So while I can understand your comment and I think that it is fair in plenty of situations, it isn't always.
1 and 2 are one in the same. The revolving door feeds itself.
It's not like the recruiter and/or hiring company are going to tell you up front "Yeah, the design team is clueless." True story: you only find that out after the fact. Pushing back is possible, and it does happen, trust me ;) But it either happens too late, management is clueless, or both.
So you update your CV in search of green pastures. That in turn creates an opening. Management won't admit it's them. The narrative is: we need better talent and that means paying more.
I feel like such arguments are rarely made in good faith due to mostly elitist attitudes but I'll give it a try.
It's one thing to push against dark patterns, and completely another to constantly fight your design teams. Do you honestly think the developer is making all these design decisions? Lol
entertainment media will always develop the ability to arbitrarily control every part of the media presentation, and the web has developed into an entertainment medium. This is why load time is so important, people will wait long times for something they need to do, but will not wait to be entertained.
I’m not sure this is different than any other medium.
Examples that come immediately to mind: academic journals, vending machines, car dashboards, magazines, credit cards, TV remotes, washing machines, etc.
