|
pipes! posted:I would also advocate not drinking from the firehose too much until you have a better handle on the basics. Really easy to fall down a frontend dev trend of the moment k-hole without really knowing what you're practicing. Yeah, I mean more immersion so you gradually accumulate more patterns to match and general recollection that a given sort of thing exists. Not deeply reading each article or anything. Obviously biased towards my own learning style...
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
fuf posted:I think it was http://sidebar.io/  All my problems are dead and gone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:12
|
|
)
|
The thing that drives me insane about sidebar.io is that 90% of the time I go there it says "No posts for today yet" and I have to click something in order to see content. How does this happen on a website that aggregates UX/UI/design articles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Jimlit posted:
 But hamburger menus are evil, and you should just do what iOS does. Sorry if you don't want it to look like an iOS app or have more than 5 items though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:
It was more about that guy drastically over complicating something as simple as making three lines on top of each other. I like all buttons and menus equally and unconditionally....
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:
This seems like a really dismissive way to react to all the evidence-backed discussion you linked. I still feel like a sticky hamburger menu bar at the top is the least bad one-size-fits-most solution for responsive designs, but it seems patently obvious that having all the navigation options available to users visible instead of hidden would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:
That's an interesting article, I'd noticed that Facebook had ditched the 'hamburger' and I'll probably do the same on the e-commerce store I'm redesigning at the moment. One of the big pros of 'mobile first' was having to make decisions on content hierarchy and UX, i.e. which links absolutely must be in the main navigation and which are just filler. Off-canvas menus aren't quite mega dropdowns yet, but I've seen a few sites now with 2 tiers of off-canvas navigation already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:This seems like a really dismissive way to react to all the evidence-backed discussion you linked. I still feel like a sticky hamburger menu bar at the top is the least bad one-size-fits-most solution for responsive designs, but it seems patently obvious that having all the navigation options available to users visible instead of hidden would be preferable. Heskie posted:That's an interesting article, I'd noticed that Facebook had ditched the 'hamburger'...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:But they didn't though, they just moved it to the bottom right and called it 'more'. Is it not obvious that this is more significant than a simply rearranging things? Four things you can do are immediately accessible and visible, and lead you straight to something labeled "More" where you can find the rest of the stuff you can do. This is a lot more clear about the options available than when everything is hidden behind a single unlabeled icon. It's much harder to elegantly implement this on a web site, but that doesn't mean it isn't easier for users.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I believe this is best practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:Is it not obvious that this is more significant than a simply rearranging things? Four things you can do are immediately accessible and visible, and lead you straight to something labeled "More" where you can find the rest of the stuff you can do. This is a lot more clear about the options available than when everything is hidden behind a single unlabeled icon. It's much harder to elegantly implement this on a web site, but that doesn't mean it isn't easier for users. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
kedo posted:I believe this is best practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
kedo posted:I believe this is best practice. The Best Best Practice™ Does the 'Learn More' link go in a list or a nav element?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
kedo posted:I believe this is best practice. That's what we in the industry refer to as the "first time UX". 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:Is it not obvious that this is more significant than a simply rearranging things? Four things you can do are immediately accessible and visible, and lead you straight to something labeled "More" where you can find the rest of the stuff you can do. This is a lot more clear about the options available than when everything is hidden behind a single unlabeled icon. It's much harder to elegantly implement this on a web site, but that doesn't mean it isn't easier for users. I agree it's a better design but at no point did they remove or move away from the TWO hamburgers they have, which makes it a terrible example to post on a Kill The Hamburger Button article. Ghostlight fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
I'm getting closer to prettying up my app now that the back-end is mostly complete. I need two things now: some stock photos and a logo. What are some good goto sources / best value for stock photos for a small app that only needs a few good high res photos and maybe some icons. Something I can get a dozen or so nice images and maybe not need any more for quite a while. Any ideas of places where I can get a simple yet quality logo designed at a reasonable price?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
What is a general, average rate per hour for a web designer? I'm going to be talking to a designer tomorrow about putting my father's business site together, and I just want an idea of what price to expect (and thus what sort of price to laugh at and hang up on)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:I agree it's a better design but at no point did they remove or move away from the TWO hamburgers they have, which makes it a terrible example to post on a Kill The Hamburger Button article. We did move away from it, in that we replaced an "all nav" affordance with an "other nav" affordance. Putting the hamburger icon on the "more" tab, f.e., really changed the way test users navigated. Much more so than I would have predicted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
black.lion posted:What is a general, average rate per hour for a web designer? I'm going to be talking to a designer tomorrow about putting my father's business site together, and I just want an idea of what price to expect (and thus what sort of price to laugh at and hang up on) Between 50 and 150 USD an hour for a competent one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
black.lion posted:What is a general, average rate per hour for a web designer? I'm going to be talking to a designer tomorrow about putting my father's business site together, and I just want an idea of what price to expect (and thus what sort of price to laugh at and hang up on) Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=web+designer+average+hourly+rate skillcrush.com posted:According to NJ Creatives Network, on the low end designer hourly rates hover around $40, while the high end is about $75 (though many designers charge $100 or more an hour), with an average of $59 an hour. Lumpy's response is also good: between $50 and $150. Ahz posted:I'm getting closer to prettying up my app now that the back-end is mostly complete. I need two things now: some stock photos and a logo. What are some good goto sources / best value for stock photos for a small app that only needs a few good high res photos and maybe some icons. Something I can get a dozen or so nice images and maybe not need any more for quite a while. http://99designs.com/ http://unsplash.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
For $150 you may as well hire a firm as opposed to a freelancer. If his work seems iffy and he has a high rate, laugh at him. Pull up websites from his portfolio on your phone as you're meeting with him to see how they do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
"Work contest" sites like this encourage spec work, which is bad form. A better starting point might be the thread in CC instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
sim posted:Let me Google that for you: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:We did move away from it, in that we replaced an "all nav" affordance with an "other nav" affordance. Putting the hamburger icon on the "more" tab, f.e., really changed the way test users navigated. Much more so than I would have predicted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:But is that change due to the fact that the tab bar is a better navigation structure even when it contains the same information, due to the move from icons to icons and text, or due to the hamburger somehow no longer being a hamburger for the purposes of writing an article about how bad the hamburger is when your main criticism - visibility of options - didn't apply to the old Facebook hamburger anyway because it was already on a proto-tab menu? I can't really get super-detailed, but tabs-with-hamburger-icon vs tabs-with-more-label behaved very differently, so there's something about people's expectations of a nav model that includes a burger that can make a big difference. It's not just an equivalent list-of-nav-triggered-by-tap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Allow me to throw out some baseless speculation! First, at a high level, I would venture that Facebook really is an outlier as far as trends in user interface design go. No other company in the world has the scale (both in terms of absolute user base and in terms of geographic distribution) and vertical, single-app integration that FB has. Other similar global, expansive brands -- Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. -- either own their own platforms or decouple their products across multiple apps. I would be careful extrapolating design direction based on what Facebook does, if only because they face unique constraints of scale and complexity. Second, at a low level, if possible, I would recommend asking your users what they think the hamburger icon means. I think you will be surprised what so-called "normal" people come up with. Together, I would make the argument that the hamburger icon in and of itself does not mean anything, and that Facebook is not a company that one should blindly follow for design direction. From there I would argue that the decision to use side navigation (and the hamburger icon) or not depends on what you are trying to accomplish. First of all, are you designing an app, a mobile website, or both? If you are designing an app, and you have so many top-level navigation points that you feel side navigation is appropriate, then I would question A) whether you have devoted sufficient time to the overall information architecture of the app (e.g. features for a banking app) or B) if a contextual label would make more sense (e.g. "folders" for an email client). Again, I go back to the inherent meaninglessness of the hamburger icon itself: Stuffing everything into a side navigation drawer makes stakeholders happy and "solves" a lot of design problems, but it doesn't serve user needs. It acts essentially as a junk drawer. If, on the other hand, you are designing a mobile website, I would again ask A) a contextual label would work better (e.g. "Sections" for a news site) or B) if you have really looked at the context of use. I've worked with clients who treat their mobile websites as if they should simply be smaller, phone-optimized versions of their desktop site when this is not guaranteed to be the case. On phones, people spend the majority of their time in apps. For companies that offer apps + a mobile website, the analytics often show that the app replaces the homepage -- next to no one manually enters the URL into their mobile web browser. Furthermore, the traffic mix for news and information sites is often driven much more by sharing, through Facebook, Twitter, text message, etc. I've worked with clients who were surprised to see that upwards of half their iOS traffic is from within WebViews in other people's apps. I hate side navigation and the hamburger menu because it is a seductive pattern that enables a lot of bad behavior. It is a way to punt on the hard business of good design. It is a powerful and dangerous tool. Whether you should use it or not depends on what you are trying to build, who you are trying to build it for, and what your analytics tell you. From what I can see, the most prominent tech properties are all moving away from side navigation in general. Facebook still uses the hamburger icon, but only as a replacement for iOS's three dot "more" menu. (I should also mention that Google seems to be trying to standardize around their own version of side navigation + the hamburger icon. I'm sure they have their reasons, but from my perspective, it looks like the path of least resistance: An easy to apply pattern that can be use to wrangle rogue partners and divisions within the company.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I would be careful extrapolating design direction based on what Facebook does, if only because they face unique constraints of scale and complexity.  quote:Stuffing everything into a side navigation drawer makes stakeholders happy and "solves" a lot of design problems, but it doesn't serve user needs. It acts essentially as a junk drawer. [...] An easy to apply pattern that can be use to wrangle rogue partners and divisions within the company.) Yeah, this. On the one hand, it's really impractical to do the global sort of interface priority (for what user profile) with 30 teams every 4 weeks. On the other hand, you can tell that exactly that work hasn't been done. We also had a bunch of layering violations in the burger: UI widgets for search, navigation directly to leaf content, navigation to app sections, app-meta-sections, read-only info display, I'm sure more. Facebook is a messy experience inherently because of the breadth and interconnection of pieces, I think, but I don't think our UI hit a local maximum of helping people navigate that mess. I wonder if the hamburger could have been created today with iOS's flat styling. It would really be non-obvious that you could even interact with it, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to create a div on an existing site that overlays the entire site? Or would I have to restructure the divs currently on my site? I'm trying to create a "loading" div that, when called up, would show right in the middle , horizontally and vertically, over everything else currently on the page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
stoops posted:Is there an easy way to create a div on an existing site that overlays the entire site? These are called modals and they're plenty doable regardless of source ordering. Google "css modal" for some of the popular ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
stoops posted:Is there an easy way to create a div on an existing site that overlays the entire site? maybe like this? code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
I've got a list of about 500 words I want to display on a page, I can't figure out a good way to lay them out though. It's a lot of information to present to the user all at once, but I'm ok with that since it's for browsing/exploring. I want it to be kind of dense. Some words have a greater weight than others but I don't think a "word cloud" is the right answer. Any ideas on how I should display this? Or a link to something similar that may give me inspiration?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
stoops posted:Is there an easy way to create a div on an existing site that overlays the entire site? I've seen this used on two projects fairly successfully: http://malsup.com/jquery/block/ Swap out the message and modify the CSS if you just want a spinner GIF. It should prevent the UI being used and center to the viewport. fletcher posted:list of about 500 words [..] it's for browsing/exploring. I want it to be kind of dense. Some words have a greater weight than others As much as you don't think it is, this sounds exactly like a "word cloud" to me. Can you provide some context on what this is for and why you don't think a word cloud is appropriate?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
v1nce posted:As much as you don't think it is, this sounds exactly like a "word cloud" to me. Can you provide some context on what this is for and why you don't think a word cloud is appropriate? It's for a list of tags (which certainly doesn't help my case against the word cloud). My only beef with the world cloud is that you can't really go through and read them all if you wanted to. Words end up being sideways and it's hard to keep track of what you've read and what you haven't. Maybe a big long single column list of words is the right answer, and maybe add a rolodex to jump to specific letters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
fletcher posted:It's for a list of tags (which certainly doesn't help my case against the word cloud). My only beef with the world cloud is that you can't really go through and read them all if you wanted to. Words end up being sideways and it's hard to keep track of what you've read and what you haven't. It's probably easy to take an HTML-using word cloud routine and skip the positioning part. But if you have the ranking info, then just bold/size appropriately, or extract a list of "most important" with a link to "all"? Might be easier with a screenshot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
fletcher posted:It's for a list of tags (which certainly doesn't help my case against the word cloud). My only beef with the world cloud is that you can't really go through and read them all if you wanted to. Words end up being sideways and it's hard to keep track of what you've read and what you haven't. Sortable datatable with the higher weighted tags at the top by default, with the option to re-order the list based on tag name as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Or a seizure-inducing emoji tracker!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I need some CMS advice. It's completely absurd but I'm so tired of having this discussion in my workplace and not getting anywhere. Here's where I vent for a while. For 3 years I was a webdev for an academic institution. Super simple stuff, minimal daily stress at work. Updating faculty websites, making PHP forms, press releases, putting up videos, new sites for programs and conference and keeping the server running smoothly. We use an in-house built CMS that we put together primarily because it was something fun to try and do, and we had the idea "Hey, maybe we can sell this to our school for some extra scratch..." It was pretty great. The team consisted of myself and one other guy. Our 20 or so users love the CMS because it's dead simple. All you can really do is upload documents, images and use TinyMCE, which fit our needs 100%. There's built in version control and permissions on our end. That's it. Then several months ago we merged with a network of hospitals. We are now this enormous corporate entity and my workload has increased tenfold. The hospital did not have a web team, or any programmers anywhere in Marketing, so we received no additional team resources. They had been on a 5 year service contract for an enterprise CMS "specifically for hospitals" that entailed shelling out a 400k lump sum and 60k a year in maintenance, plus $200 an hour for additional support ticket hours. The first four years of the contract were wasted completely. It was supposed to have been launched 6 months into it. Executive leadership, department chairs, managers and doctors couldn't agree on poo poo, so the site never got launched until we got here. It's out now, but this contract is up in a year, people hate the design and they will lose their poo poo if the budget room needs to be made to renew it. They would also likely consider us obsolete. So we have to build a new one. Technically I have to build a new one, because the other guy is being pushed into creating an app because the hospital "needs an app we need it so bad, everyone has app but us". I've got a year to put it together and get it approved, along with all the other poo poo I normally do. No budget for professional development or learning. I could probably swing the resources to purchase modules and plugins and whatnot, otherwise basically no budget. I have no designers besides an old lady in creative services that makes really lovely banners. No UX designer for a site that needs to have major, major considerations in place for usability (patients, elderly, sick). I really only know how to use the custom CMS we built, the lovely enterprise systems they use around here (VitalSite, Sitemaker lmao), Wordpress and Drupal. I also need a way to make departments slightly different (Cardiology, Orthopaedics, Cancer, etc.) because of asinine internal power struggles about marketing priorities. Multisite is going to be necessary. It will somehow need to integrate with the Health Library we have a contract for. Drupal may not be a realistic option. I've only ever designed and built one Drupal theme from scratch and it was garbage. I've never developed a module. The selection of suitable themes isn't as great as what I've scouted for WP. I wouldn't be able to troubleshoot errors well. I have no clue how I would build the Find a Doctor feature. My users are almost entirely tech illiterate 70 year olds and administrative assistants. Drupal would almost certainly confuse the poo poo out of them. I love Drush though. I feel like Drupal would be a safer option. Nobody touches the Drupal sites I've done, but my WP sites are a bitch to fight off attacks and keep up to date. There would be no patient sensitive info on the site, it's goal is marketing and helping patients find providers. Server does not need to have HIPAA compliant levels of security. I've made about a dozen WP themes, some great, some not so great. I'd still buy one and modify it, because I'm running out of time even though I just started. I think the users would actually be able to use WP. This is basically exactly what I need for Find a Doctor, except with people and profiles sorting by department. If I went this route, I could probably have the ball rolling within a week. I'm 10x more comfortable in WP but I don't know how appropriate it is to use that for this kind of project. http://www.mayoclinic.org/ Is the benchmark, and is similar in scope to what I need to do in a year. By myself. Also I have to do all my other job duties such as maintaining the network of School sites that will eventually want to "integrate". TL;DR I'm tasked with building a hospital site in a year. Is Drupal or Wordpress the more realistic option to actually complete this in time? My users can barely type let alone use a CMS with a learning curve like Drupal. I'm much less proficient with Drupal than WP, but if I put in a stupid amount of effort I could do it. Something is telling me that WP is a bad idea but I can't put my finger on it. Help me make a decision goons. What would you use if you were building a website for a hospital? Yes, I'm looking for another job. They also understand that they're going to get what they get and it will be far from perfect. Mr. Meagles fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Tom Gorman posted:http://www.mayoclinic.org/ Is the benchmark, and is similar in scope to what I need to do in a year. By myself. lol Tom Gorman posted:TL;DR I'm tasked with building a hospital site in a year. Is Drupal or Wordpress the more realistic option to actually complete this in time? My users can barely type let alone use a CMS with a learning curve like Drupal. I'm much less proficient with Drupal than WP, but if I put in a stupid amount of effort I could do it. Something is telling me that WP is a bad idea but I can't put my finger on it. Help me make a decision goons. What would you use if you were building a website for a hospital? If I were in your place, I would use WordPress if only because you're "much less proficient with Drupal." Unless you need to secure medical records or something, I can't think of any good reason why you shouldn't use WordPress. Bias warning: I like WordPress more than Drupal. e: Tom Gorman posted:This is basically exactly what I need for Find a Doctor, except with people and profiles sorting by department. If I went this route, I could probably have the ball rolling within a week. I'm 10x more comfortable in WP but I don't know how appropriate it is to use that for this kind of project. All this (likely) is is a form that processes a wp_query based on custom taxonomies. Have a custom post type "Doctors" with all of their various categorizations as individual taxonomies and boom, that section is done. To be honest this sounds like a fun project to me.  e2: Tom Gorman posted:Also I have to do all my other job duties such as maintaining the network of School sites that will eventually want to "integrate". lolx2 kedo fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
I don't understand why so few browsers support text/html in DOMParser. Like bro you're a browser, you had ONE loving JOB. So we have people who are submitting HTML in forms, we want to validate that client-side (we do The Right Thing server-side too, but everything feels a bit nicer when we don't have the round-trip just to validate). Basically we just want to disallow certain tags. Or more accurately, only allow certain tags. We can use DOMParser to parse it as text/xml in all browsers we claim to support, but then people can't use ampersands or angle-brackets that don't form tags, which kinda sucks for like <i>Black & Blue</i> or <b>Me > You</b>. I've looked if anyone's implemented an HTML parser in JS, that would be heavy as poo poo but whatever, and it looks like there are various things out there in various stages of completion and I'm just thinking, you know what, THE BROWSER SHOULD BE ABLE TO PARSE HTML ITSELF. But only IE10, Chrome, FF will. Dunno about Opera. Safari doesn't. So someone on Freenode suggested sticking it in a hidden element and then doing it that way. It's pretty clever but pretty hackish. Is that how you guys would do it? I'm not a front-end guy, I loving hate this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
What is the easiest way to create 5-6 webpages in a grid? Were having issues at work with people loving up simple part numbers or asking me non-stop. Something similar to this layout: They can click on the shape they need.  Then figure out the part number they need.  Not looking for pretty, just simple and functional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:35
|
|