- Two of those wishlists css features already exist as specs:
> n-th child variable
See sibiling-index() and sibling-count() https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/sibling-ind...
> Reusable blocks
See @function and @mixin draft spec, https://drafts.csswg.org/css-mixins-1/ and https://css-tricks.com/functions-in-css/
Both are available in chrome already.
- The tool we use for our docs AI answers lets you mine that data for feature requests. It generates a report of what it didn't have answers for and summarizes them as potential feature gaps. (Or at least what it is aware it didn't have answers for).
People seem more willing to ask an AI about certain things then be judged by asking the same question of a human, so in that regard it does seem to surface slightly different feature requests then we hear when talking to customers directly.
We use inkeep.com (not affiliated, just a customer).
- FYI the "watch video" button in the hero of https://codevideo.io/ doesn't work, missing the video ID.
- scrollbar-gutter: stable; to those unfamiliar. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/scrollbar-g...
- I feel like I should be writing with the goal that the end reader is actually an LLM. The LLM will be the one spitting out the answers to the actual users via things like co-pilot, but I am not sure how that should change my approach to structure or level of detail in docs. Heavier on the number of code examples?
- I have the reverse problem with a bank atm in my city on google maps. I've marked it permanently closed several times. It will get marked permanently closed, then months later appear open again. The first time that happened, I actually went back thinking maybe they re-opened it, but nope still just a vacant wall with a bunch of 1 star reviews.
- Typo's keyboard was very much a copy and probably infringed on even more then was listed.
I can't think of any of their design patents this would interfere with. There's a small chance of some internal mechanical or light guide related patents, but that would be pretty unlikely. Even more unlikely would be BlackBerry having anyone around still that would even know what to look for.
- Here's the closest I could come up with: https://codepen.io/dsmmcken/pen/rNRaOJE
It does a subtle blur, then a subtle sharpen, then repeats the middle pixel of a 3x3 grid. Happy holidays!
Doesn't work on mobile, probably needs some pixel scaling math.
- Demo of this feature from the most recent Adobe Max conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/1tbrJNP5Cjk?si=tZegLn1-kXE1axDq...
The style transfer is really impressive (watch past the underwhelming first example of the airplane).
- Adobe is doing some great work here in my opinion in terms of building AI tools that make sense for artist workflows. This "sneak peak" demo from the recent Adobe Max conference is pretty much exactly what you described, actually better because you can just click on an object in the image and drag it.
See video: https://www.adobe.com/max/2023/sessions/project-stardust-gs6...
- This study doesn't make any practical sense. These pages weren't designed to convey the maximal amount of information in the least amount of space, they were designed to sell a product. It's impossible to claim if these designs have a negative impact due to content dispersion or not unless you are measuring them against the purpose they were designed for.
They explicitly studied ecommerce/product pages here. The relevant metrics are which page had a higher perceived product value? Which page had a higher conversion ratio? Which page resulted in a higher NPS? Which page created a more positive brand affinity?
You don't sell portable speakers using specs, you sell it with aspirational images of it being used on a beach. Of course expanding an accordion of product details then asking "On a scale from 1-7, How well do you feel you understood the offering communicated on the page?" results in a higher survey score. If you said the more dense page converted better, then I would be surprised.
It's like designing a study on the negative impact of hard F1 race car seats, adding a bunch of foam, testing which is more comfortable, then proclaiming one is better than the other because it was rated more comfortable, when the only metric they were designed for is lap time.
- I agree, I like 1.1 speed. The playback dropdown actually has a "custom" button in the top right of the dropdown on the desktop view of the site. You can set 1.05 and 1.1 playback speeds with it. It's a little annoying to use on mobile, as you have to switch to "desktop" view in the browser and can't use the app.
https://codepen.io/dsmmcken/pen/WbwYOEQ?editors=0100
p{counter-increment:n;--n:counter(n)}p:nth-child(3n){--f:"Fizz"}p:nth-child(5n){--b:"Buzz";--n:''}p::after{content:var(--f,var(--n))var(--b,'')}