It is not open sourced, at least not yet. Putting something on github generally means it can be openly distributed. The source code says "all rights reserved" and there is no license file.
This is great how really good patterns are copied and well adopted.
I remember how the "Pull to reload" feature was first used and now it is used everywere!
Author needs to figure out a better way of doing screencapture. Using an image that might _actually_ induce seizures isn't a very good first impression.
I thought it was one of the clearest explanations I have ever seen on github. Many other projects would have a lot of text, no video, and if ever a video it would need flash and load slowly. While I agree the quality of the video isn't top notch, its clear in seconds what the project does.
Why does he need to make a good impression? look at the code and make your determination - build it and make a pull request with your improved video. This is the spirit of Github: he may be an awesome coder but weak in video production - fork and collaborate.
You seem to be of the mindset that "Open Source" means "other people will be eager to contribute". That's not necessarily the case. If you want people to contribute, you need to give them a reason to do so. People like contributing to high-quality projects. If the first impression of your project indicates a lack of quality, this will deter people from looking any further.
Hrm. I was trying to make a point about confusing Github with FOSS which greatly predates it. These days it seem to be becoming a more common mistake to make. I guess I didn't do that very well.
Sure, that might happen. Or someone could spend their time writing code for their own projects instead of building a video for someone else's, because hey, he couldn't be assed to make his project interesting enough to spend time playing with. My first reaction, too, was "that's a pretty half-assed job," and closed the window. That makes it very unlikely that I go back and use it if I find a case where it might be valuable (because I won't remember it, except for the low-quality video and the lack of a demo - doesn't GitHub have a "pages" feature, anyway, where he could embed a real video on YouTube or something?). And if I'm not using it, there's zero chance of me going "hey, this could be great if X," writing X, and contributing it back.
It might be anathema to the "code is everything!" mindset, but part of getting people interested in your projects is presentation. You might think that's not the spirit of Github, but it's the way lots of (most?) people roll.
Does this (and/or the original) work like a proper pie menu, i.e. I can manipulate it with a drag, not just two clicks? And is the the active area really a slice of a pie and not just the circular icon (i.e. it allows be to drag beyond one of the icons, and it still works if I'm in its "shadow").
Nice work! It definitely looks very similar, but if you compare the animations closely I don't think you can say it's been recreated. (And I'd bet perfecting the animation is one place some Path engineer and/or designer spent a lot of time.)
Specifically I'm looking at the path (small 'p') each icon takes out of and back into the +/x button. When they're close to the button these seem to stack on top of each other more than those in Path, which instead almost follow each other around. Also, something about the "bounce" at the end of the open animation looks a bit different (easiest to see looking at the bottom-most icon).
A nice start though. And I'm sure it looks even better in person than in that demo animated gif.
I love the way the new Path app looks / works but not a big fan of the fly out menu. It adds an additional click versus having a simple bar of the actions appear at the bottom of the screen. Does anyone else feel the same? Just curious.
A constant bottom bar would take up screen real-estate reserved for the feed, which is where most of the user's time will be spent (mostly consume vs create content)
And even if there was a bottom bar, Path offers 6 different posting options. Putting all of them on one bar, or hiding them somehow with a slider, would make it seem awfully crowded.
More importantly, the bottom bar is for switching tabs, just like tabs in a browser. It doesn't make sense for performing actions.
A tab bar would be a worthwhile replacement for the slide out left menu, which adds friction to switching sections, and lacks discoverability. If you want people ever visiting those sections, it's worth the screen real estate you lose.
Cool! I think I'd like for the icons to be in a rising diagonal arrangement. Less work for the first joint of the thumb. Imagine it on the iPhone app...see what I mean?
I'm confused. Yes this is cool but it kinda looks like where Macromedia Flash started out. Don't tell me we are so far ahead we are now going backwards.
Startup does something clever but simple; competition begins quickly.
It's not the creator's fault that it's easy to reproduce and he did so in his free time. It's now free for everyone. Maybe the startup could clone his repo and keep part of their product updated by the community for free.
believe me: i deeply understand what's happening here; when i did del.icio.us there were hundreds of copies. because they did not understand the core decisions, they generally went down the wrong path.
I've felt this pain deeply as well, and a non-technology company. Founding one of the earliest successful coworking spaces, lots of other "shared offices" have popped up and even Regus has co-opted the term coworking and the physical attributes of a coworking space without considering the underlying decisions or core values that we've established.
You nailed it. Did they change the constrained iOS UI for the better? Yes. Do they want to see their menu pop up in every new app? Maybe no.
But they clearly resolved an issue that many people have had for long. And we are thankful to them for that matter.
I will sure look upon this code to see if I can get some inspiration.
Remember, some painter said: "Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"
It's not just the menu. Is the whole thinking behind the use of it. Here's a nice interview of the founder telling how they wanted everything on one screen.
