Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | TonyStr's commentslogin

I remember doing this as a kid making my first website. I thought it looked more "professional"

Would you prefer that CSS never evolve, and our frustrations remain the same? Writing CSS today has gotten significantly easier with flexbox, variables and now nesting. BEM is not part of the CSS spec, that's just a design methodology.

I would prefer it to finally figure things out properly, and then just stop changing, yes.

> Writing CSS today has gotten significantly easier with flexbox, variables and now nesting.

Which, you know, are not some technically complicated ideas that simply could not have been done thirty years ago. Heck, <table> existed, and so did the algorithm that laid it out, from the outset yet getting flexbox to replicate that functionality took literal decades. And nesting is in no way more complicated to implement than cascading.

> BEM is not part of the CSS spec, that's just a design methodology.

Yes, and it existed for a reason, to paper over the deficiencies of the built-in functionality.


This is true. I use increased font size on my phone, and so many websites are borderline unusable because of massive unnecessary padding. But I am also a culprit of using rem for everything. What is the alternative? Pixels?

Thanks for helping me realize my accidental anti-pattern. Can you link some of the sites that do that the worst.

I want to use those as references to fix my UI (on increased font-sizes on small screens) before releasing an app I've spent 4+ months on.


Perfect example for you: indeed.com (desktop site). unless its been fixed recently, huge swaths of area are already empty padded space, made worse by zooming

I think what I liked the most about The Lean Startup was how he would reduce experiences into patterns, and then define them. You get a bunch of concrete ideas that look simple enough to add to a checklist. I do think the book dragged a bit toward the end, but I appreciated the humility of the writing.

Incorruptible sounds interesting - I've long thought about how much companies and their output are defined by their social structures. Microslop doesn't produce broken software because they hire stupid or evil people for example.


Well, how hard should you beat yourself up over a mistake like that? If I forgot my groceries in the car, I'd just laugh about it being a silly one-time mistake. But if it happened twice I'd take it more seriously, and maybe make a note or something to remind me. I'm sure everyone has made some silly mistake like forgetting a jacket at a party or leaving a phone at home sometime. I think we should be a little extra forgiving toward others, because we'd so easily forgive our own mistakes

>video on youtube, of someone absolutely struggling at a task that had a built-in checklist

This sounds like Bog who records himself setting up Linux distros or configuring software


Some people are very good at working with complex abstract ideas, but are terrible at signaling that intelligence to others. And some are fantastic at signaling intelligence and steering conversation toward domains of knowledge that they've studied (many political commentators come to mind), but don't seem to have processed those ideas very deeply.

You are right, but at the same time, if no UX designer is involved in the loop, what happens when they've prompted a prototype that looks good - and therefore eludes them to think it's designed good as well? How do we convince them that we need to involve a UX designer to fix the application flow?

This is such a great mental model.

The first three are the same, and the latter three are in no way related to the passage.

They are all related by the fact that they are all fictional characters.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: