I don’t understand a lot of the criticisms at modern ui/ux patterns in this post. Ex: complaining about the hidden settings menu in chrome. Most people just want their applications to work and have the most common functions easily accessible. I am sure most users of chrome don’t ever need to delve into settings and are happy with the minimal set of options presented to them and that user testing backs this decision.
Yes, and browsers are specifically about the content you're viewing whether that be a simple page or a web-app. How often do you really use the application menus of a browser in the first place, and does that justify giving them center stage over and above the tab list at the top?
There may be arguments in favor of global menus, but browsers are not one of them. Personally, I detest global menus like the plague because it really disconnects the list of actions from what I'm going to be acting on, especially if you have e.g. focus follows mouse. (But I'm sure we're just supposed to let go of that too...)
EDIT: ... and since nobody asked: The problem with the Linux desktop is mostly lack of consistency across applications, IMO.
I don't think I understand the author's critique of the Chrome/Firefox menu button either other than the weird choice of iconography. I'm curious as to what he would propose as a solution to the problem.
I do agree with the author on his sentiment on the lack of discoverability with applications nowadays. It might've been better to showcase the `chrome://settings` interface since it's a prime example of less suitable mobile design bleeding into the desktop UX. Funny, I just noticed that they actually use a proper hamburger icon for toggling the hidden settings menu, not the triple dots.
Deus Ex was there in 2000, no big, open spaces and vehicles like modern open world games but political intrigue over and beyond Neuromancer and the hacking and body modification were integral parts of gameplay, System Shock 2 had those hacking/body mod gameplay features as well in 1999 but in space, so there are some great ones out there if you don't mind older games and if they run on a system you have.
It is an evaluation. He is not impressed so he doesn't look further into it.
Unfortunately, the over-hyped cyberpunk community is on a bandwagoning trip of dismissing all criticism as gating or ignorance, even elevating the remarks of a handful people on the internet as the main criticism against the game, e.g., cyberpunk on a day is not cyberpunk.
Personally, I find the direction the developers are taking refreshing, but that doesn't mean they haven't missed opportunities or made no mistakes.
The main argument of those happy with the trailer's cyberpunk style is that the later is not a mix of cyber with outrun or vaporwave, but as the term states cyber and punk. Hence it is not limited to the dusky, rainy scenes of Blade Runner.
They forget, however, that ironically cyberpunk is also more than the sum of its parts. Even if you wish to progress this very visually demanding genre into a new direction, we still have to able to experience the feeling of low life, high tech that is so essential to cyberpunk.
So to claim that you can't do cyberpunk on a day does indeed make no sense. But to imply it is of no concern how you present your day scenes and the color pallette doesn't matter, that is even worse.
It's not a strong one. You could say that about any two games in the same genre - "Starcraft is just a re-skin of Warcraft". I would still buy Starcraft.
Deployment to me means to release into the real world, otherwise it is just a test and whether that test is in a closed course or even in a simulation makes no difference to me. That environment would not endanger random strangers.
Why is this a downloadable app instead of a web app? It's built entirely using web technology. I think RSS belongs in my browser, so I can easily access it from whatever computer I might be using.
This is a great point; however, we wanted to bring the user experience to the desktop. You are more than welcome to submit a PR to make this application web compatible.
Why do you require users to make an account? I personally would rather have all my settings stored locally, and export them if I needed to. An option for this would be great.
Yeah I installed it, saw you need an account, and uninstalled it.
I quite like desktop programs still, but I expect everything to be stored locally and not to need an account. I had hoped for a KeePass style db file that I could sync on Dropbox or something, but the last thing I need is more accounts and my data on some randoms server that could be taken down when they get bored, or run out of money/motivation.
Your comment broke the HN guidelines, so it was properly downvoted. This one too. Could you please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all? We're hoping for something a bit better here.
Well yeah, ofcourse. I dont see where my inital post broke anything.
It was esentially as meaningfull as OPs reply.
Ofcourse, the point of "this app should run in a browser" is very valid. The reply, he can just code it himself is in my eyes a passive aggressive way of saying "no, i said your point is valid, but actually think it isn't and therefore ill ignore it anyway."
Its obvioulsy, that a well developed web app should be runable in a browser and the developers could have thought about it earlier. They know their project better than anyone, so the afford of understanding how this piece of software works for an outsider is way to high.
"Your app should run on windows. It only runs on [not windows]? Downvote!"
"Your app runs based on technologies that mean you could easily port it to windows. But it doesn't run on windows? Downvote!"
"Your app runs on windows, but it's built on technologies that allow it to run anywhere else; why does it only run on windows? Downvote!"
See the pattern? Saying "I don't like your entire contribution because it doesn't run on a given platform on which I think it COULD run" is counterproductive and at best pointless; at worst rude.
I think the chances of MagSafe coming back are slim. I’m debating getting the last updated 15 with the old style keyboard and MagSafe to hold me over for a while...
I think people are mostly complaining about the direction the last update took, such as the touchbar which seems more targeted at less experienced computer users and lack of RAM options beyond 16gb, etc.
