I recently wanted to post something on twitter that was just slightly over the 140 chars limit and I didn’t want to shorten it by cutting off characters (some lyrics from Pink Floyd’s “Hey You” that expressed a particular thought I had at the moment — it would be barbaric to alter Roger Waters’ lyrics in any way, wouldn’t it? ;-)). I always knew there were some ligatures and digraphs in the Unicode table, so I thought that these might be used to shorten tweets, not only that particular one of course, but any tweet. So I wrote a small script (warning: very rough around the edges) to explore the Unicode characters that browsers supported, find the replacement pairs and build the tweet shortening script (I even thought of a name for it: ligatweet, LOL I was never good at naming).
I loved elastic textareas since the very first moment I used one (at facebook obviously). They let you save screen real estate while at the same time they are more comfortable for the end user. It’s one of the rare occasions when you can have your UI cake and eat it too!
However, I never liked the implementation of the feature. In case you never wondered how it’s done, let me explain it in a nutshell: All elastic textarea scripts (or at least all that I know of) create a hidden (actually, absolutely positioned and placed out of the browser window) div, copy some CSS properties from the textarea to it (usually padding, font-size, line-height, font-family, width and font-weight) and whenever the contents of the textarea change they copy them to the hidden div and measure it’s dimensions. It might be good enough for facebook, where the styling of those textareas is fairly simple and consistent throughout the site, or any other particular site, but as a generic solution? I never liked the idea.
New version of rgba.php is out!
It’s been a while since I posted my little server-side solution for cross-browser RGBA colors (in a nutshell: native rgba for the cool browsers that support it, a PHP-generated image for those that don’t). For features, advantages, disadvantages etc, go see the original post. In this one I’ll only discuss the new version.
So, since it’s release I’ve received suggestions from many people regarding this script. Some other ideas were gathered during troubleshooting issues that some others faced while trying to use it. I hope I didn’t forget anything/anyone 🙂
In case anyone is interested, this is my take on the “challenge” that Brad Neuberg posted today on Ajaxian. It needs more properties, but it’s very easy to extend. I guess I should also add CSS3 values (RGBA/HSL(A) colors, CSS gradients etc) but oh well, I’m currently in a hurry. I will, if anyone actually finds it useful (?).
It didn’t prove much of a challenge actually and I honestly doubt it’s educational value (actually it’s value in general), but it was an interesting thing to do while drinking my first coffee in the morning — I really enjoyed writing it 🙂
Exploring CSS3 text-shadow
I consider CSS3’s text-shadow
one of the most exciting CSS3* properties, which offers us a lot more effects than it’s name suggests. Of course, it can be used for creating drop shadows for text, and it carries out that task very well, but it’s inherent flexibility allows it to be also used for glow effects, outlines, bevels, extruded text, inset text, fuzzy text and many others (until browser bugs and backwards compatibility come into play… :(). This post is about various findings of mine (and others’, where a source is provided) regarding this property, including browser bugs and inconsistencies, effects that can be achieved with it, compatibility woes etc.
Yesterday, I was editing a CSS file and I was wondering how many bytes/KB would a particular addition add to it, in order to decide if it was worth it. Since, I had found myself wondering about the exact same thing multiple times in the past, I decided to make a simple standalone HTML page that would compute the size of any entered text in bytes, KB, MB, etc (whatever was most appropriate). It should be simple and quick and it should account for line terminator differences across operating systems.
About half an hour later, I was done. And then it dawned on me: Someone else might need it too! Since .com domains are, so cheap, hey, let’s get a domain for it as well! There are several sites with a domain that are way simpler than that anyway. A friend that was sitting next to me suggested “sizematters.com” as a joke, but as it turned out, bytesizematters.com was free, so we registered it. And there it is, less than a day after, it’s aliiive. 😛
Any feedback or suggestions are greatly welcome!
For instance, should I implement a very simple minification algorithm and display bytesize for that as well, or is it too much and ruins the simplicity of it without being worth it? [edit: I did it anyway]
Should I implement a way to compare two pieces of text and find out the difference in byte size (could be useful for JavaScript refactoring)? [edit: I did it anyway]
Yeah, yeah I know, bevels are soooo 1996. And I agree. However, it’s always good to know the capabilities of your tools. Talented designers will know when it’s suitable to use a certain effect and incapable ones will abuse whatever is given to them, so after a lot of thought, I decided to blog about my discovery.
If a web application has some sort of registration system (and most do), the registration page should be one of the most attractive, inviting, usable pages of it. It should make you to want to register, not repulse you. We don’t want the user to give up in the middle of filling it because they are fed up with it’s length or bad usability, or -even worse- not even attempt to do so, do we?
The most popular websites usually take this rule to heart and employ the simplest registration forms: Only the basic fields required, and most of the times, even without password/email confirmation.
I was wondering lately – what would be the simplest possible registration form?
I just read Jakob Nielsen’s recent post in which he urged web designers/developers to stop password masking due to it’s inherent usability issues. I found it an interesting read. Hey, at last, someone dared to talk about the elephant in the room!
In most cases password masking is indeed useless, but still, there are several cases where you need that kind of protection. He also points that out, suggesting a checkbox to enable the user to mask their entered password if they wish to do so. He also suggests that checkbox being enabled by default on sites that require high security.
I think the checkbox idea is really good, as long as it works in the opposite way: Password masking should always be the default and you should check the checkbox to show the characters you typed. This is in line with what Windows (Vista or newer) users are already accustomed to anyway
First of all, sorry for my long absence! I haven’t abandoned this blog, I was just really, really busy. I’m still busy, and this probably won’t change soon. However, I will still blog when I get too fed up with work or studying (this is one of these moments…). Now, let’s get to the meat.
The situation
In most web applications, even the simplest ones, the need for form handling will arise. There will be forms that need to be submitted, checked, processed or returned to the user informing them about any errors. A good empirical rule I try to follow is “Try not to produce URLs that don’t have a meaning if accessed directly”. It sounds simple and common-sense, doesn’t it? However, as Francois Voltaire said, “common sense is not so common”. I’ve seen variations of the following scenario several times, in several websites or even commercial web application software: