Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[H. S. Teoh]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:37:24AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]
> Yea, there's a lot of things that are much better done in CSS that a
> lot of people don't even know about. For example, most rollovers are
> easily doable in pure CSS. But there's a lot stuff out there
> (paricularly things created in Adobe's "software") that use JS for
> rollovers, which doesn't even work as well (even with JS on).

Ugh. Don't get me started on Adobe. I don't know what they do to their
programmers, but obviously UI design is not part of their staff
training. Have you seen acrobat reader's UI? It's utterly atrocious.
Completely counterintuitive, and an embarrassment to modern UI design.
And that's their product line. Don't even mention their website.


> OTOH, I don't like CSS drop-down menus. Maybe it's different in CSS3,
> but in CSS2 the only way to make CSS menus work is for them to open
> upon rollover, not click. And dropdown menus opening upon rollover is
> just a usability mess, IMO, *and* inconsistent with pretty much any
> GUI OS I've ever used.
[...]

Hmm. I rather *like* CSS drop-down menus, actually. At least, it's *way*
better than those annoying badly-written bloated JS menus. Though if
it's not done properly, it can be an utter annoyance. E.g., if the menu
is separated from the element that triggers it by a gap of several
pixels... then it's almost impossible to actually use it. (This happens
to me a lot 'cos I fiddle with default font size settings. Which lets me
see the pervasiveness of broken pixel-dependent CSS in all its glory.
OK, I better stop now, 'cos static vs. fluid layouts are another of my
pet peeves... this thread will never end if I keep going.)


T

-- 
Amateurs built the Ark; professionals built the Titanic.