Messages go off the screen very quickly and a lot of screen space is spent on decorations (user icons, names, speech bubbles, padding) leaving it with basically the density of comic chat. This is especially a problem with communication tools, which for some reason are all copying Slack and leaving very little screen space for the thing you actually want to see - the text that the other person is writing. I'm not the person you're replying to but I can put in my two cents on what I miss often in modern designs: The mantra often repeated at the design program where I worked was: "The user is not like me." The real problem occurs when a designer attempts to substitute their own gut instinct to compensate for a lack of understanding of their target audience. With respect to things like whitespace, information density, hit-target/button size, modals, adherence to platform standards, up-front complexity vs hidden actions, icons vs words, customizability, etc those can be good or bad depending on user and context. The difference was that the former had the humility to accept that the design missed the mark and continued to iterate whereas the latter was often willing to ship anyway due to misplaced confidence, strict deadlines, or a CEO with a Steve Jobs complex. Even the best design groups I've worked with produced nearly the same number of beautiful-but-bad designs as the worst ones. (Along with an organization that has the humility to accept when a redesign is unsuccessful.) If you do nothing else, do this. Second, usability tests with a representative sample of the target audience. When interviewing designers I'm regularly surprised how many of them have been working in the field for years and have a beautiful portfolio and yet when I drill into their process they seem to have spent surprisingly little effort understanding of the human on one side of the interaction. I agree with most of what people have written, but I think the two biggest gaps are:įirst, understanding the target users and their goals, tasks, skills, context of use, performance, etc. In my experience, "dribbble designers" sometimes take a "cargo cult" approach to design that apes the appearance of good design without understanding what actually makes a design good in the first place.
#Mad mount webdav client code
Even Google AdWords has had malware injected in its JavaScript, a blogger is not going to be worth my time to read if I have to trust his code isn't malicious just to see what he has to say about an obscure fruit. I shouldn't need JavaScript to see that, especially if I don't know you or trust you. Many times this is even just so they can show you a blog post, which is just text and some images. Just for prettiness they'll break a basic browser functionality, then they try to re-implement in their framework and it just creates an abstraction layer on top of an abstraction layer, creating unnecessary bloat. Most of these things are reinventing the wheel. I shouldn't be logged out or yelled at by an app for hitting the back or refresh buttons on my web browser. For instance, I shouldn't have to sacrifice the ability to open a link in a new tab, or sacrifice the ability to link _period_ which is commonly the case (which interferes with bookmarking, etc). Just basic adherence to web standards I think is really the problem people have with these interfaces.īasic support for already existing web client functionality. More on it can be learned on (Disclaimer: I was the mentor of this GSoC project). There is also a modern alternative to Korganizer being worked on called Kalendar. Technically there is nothing that makes it impossible to use on macOS, we just need more helping hands to help with fixing the platform specific issues.
#Mad mount webdav client windows
I have been told that a better Windows support is being worked on for the entire PIM suite and I hope that at some point exe can be distributed. * KOrganizer does run on Windows but it require to be built from source. * SabreDAV supports WebDAV and this is that we are using at Nextcloud for our webdav/caldav and carddav support. IHMO this is that matters more than the programming language used. It's maintained, there is an active community and an healthy enterprise behind the project. It's a PHP 7.3 codebase with sure quite a lot of legacy stuff but a lot of thing has been improved and refactored with the time.
* I wouldn't call Nextcloud codebase old. Disclaimer: Involved in both KDE (including kde pim and kalendar) and Nextcloud.
0 kommentar(er)
