Rounded corners and pill-shaped buttons really infest UI everywhere, and I never understood what kind of ergonomics they are supposed to improve.
And fighting them is increasingly difficult, but at least somewhat possible:
- VSC luckily still supports
workbench.experimental.modernUI
we can turn off; and if they will be marginally clever, it will remain there indefinitely.
On the web, we can use userstyles sharpening most dulled corners [1]. And if you happen to have seen upcoming Firefox skin, it is also pill addict's fewer dream. We can use userChrome.css, but web components are making it very cumbersome and fragile, basically constantly adding new custom properties, being glad they are really used [2]. But I digress. I really look forward for this pill mania to wear off, like wet floors, glitters, and similar fads.
I actually like pill-shaped buttons, ever since the times of Sun OpenLook. They pleasantly contrast with rectangular input boxes. It's additionally important because of the wicked flat style where clicky things do not differ from text areas and static elements.
> I never understood what kind of ergonomics they are supposed to improve.
People like buttons with sharp corners in real things because they are rare and expensive, and buttons with round corners in digital things because they imitate the cheap round buttons that are everywhere.
Now that the round corners have been overused, we may get some fashion of sharp corners again.
Ha! Last year I did some preliminary research, and all contemporary sources I've found agreed that last public search engine stopped supporting meta keywords around 2018, IIUC. So good catch about Yandex, thanks for the headsup! Funny, how things get complicated :) This meta had very turbulent history in 2010s and refuses to die, apparently.
Well from the (incomplete, as turned out) info I gathered it turned out that it was never standardised to begin with (unlike meta description, for example), so it did not even have to be "deprecated". (Like it ever meant something in the real world…) I am definitely for any obsolete mischief, so it brings me joy hearing there is vernacular continuity!
(As for external search engines,FWIR, in its heyday some search engines briefly regarded it quite respectfully, but eventually due to SEO spam they either started to ignore it, or took it as a negative signal, allegedly. But as pointed out in sibling comment, it still survives in Yandex, what is quite surprising plot twist for me.)
"Many search engines do not consider such keywords, because this feature has historically been used unreliably and even misleadingly as a way to spam search engine results in a way that is not helpful for users."
HTML 4.01 says the following:
"This specification does not define a set of legal meta data properties. The meaning of a property and the set of legal values for that property should be defined in a reference lexicon called a profile. For example, a profile designed to help search engines index documents might define properties such as "author", "copyright", "keywords", etc."
Ha, I stay corrected! Crawling back under rock to re-read WHATWG and historical W3C docs to fill the voids…
Note to self: Apparently, I mentally froze around 2009, so I have some decades to catch on. It seems the breaking point was after 2009 Hixie's WONFIX for adding keywords [0], at a time when both `keywords` and `description` were both swept aside into "MetaExtensions" [1]. The turning point I clearly missed came in 2010 [2] and got resolved through [3].
Huh, a few of the examples/prose about RSD, pingback, and twitter tags follow the same heading order, and mention the same details with the same links.
Like, it's really no big deal I guess. You were always going to find out this info from sources compiled by other people. But at least don't do the "I'll change some words and call it mine" high school essay plagiarism technique. There was clearly real research done here as well, it's not like it would've been that much harder to write it yourself.
source:
> X (formerly Twitter) now falls back to Open Graph tags when twitter:* tags are absent, making the dedicated Twitter Card markup redundant for most use cases.
article:
> X falls back to the widely respected Open Graph meta tags, making the Twitter-specific declarations largely useless.
---
source:
> The Twitter Card Validator was retired and the original Twitter Developers documentation is no longer accessible.
article:
> However, the documentation and card validator are no longer accessible (previously at https://dev.twitter.com/cards/getting-started and https://cards-dev.twitter.com/validator respectively).
---
source:
> Twitter's Do Not Track support was effectively dropped following the platform's transition to X. The original Twitter privacy options documentation is no longer accessible, and the signal is not honored in practice.
article:
> Twitter also had a Do Not Track meta tag for opting out of tracking when using Twitter for Websites widgets. Again, the documentation (previously at https://dev.twitter.com/web/overview/privacy) is now inaccessible, and it seems the tag is no longer respected.
---
source:
> XML-RPC pingbacks have been widely disabled by default due to their use in DDoS amplification attacks. Use Webmention instead.
article:
> They functioned somewhat similarly to how WebMentions do. Unfortunately, pingbacks rather quickly became an avenue for spam and SEO-gaming, so fell out of fashion. Vulnerabilities allowing sites to be tied up in DDoS attacks also became widely exploited.
1. many, MANY implementation bugs in `background-clip: text` across browsers, especially Firefox [1], basically safe only for simple cases with no additional transforms or filters.
2. `color: transparent` ensures the text will be invisible in every browser that does supports the `transparent` keyword (i.e. basically every single one, presumably) but not support background-clip:text yet, or fail to load or interpret the background-image (like in high contrast/forced colours mode). Use `-webit-text-fill-color: transparent` instead. (Yes, that vendor prefix is necessary, and yes, it is de-facto standardised and implemented in Chrome and Firefox [2]. And yes, it is as absurd as it gets.)
3. Touching the `letter-spacing` turns off all ligatures, logically. Could be a good thing, actually, but worth knowing. (Anthropic used to use negative letter-spacing thorough its webpages, but now it seems they abandoned that.)
I fully agree, yet in this particular case it probably holds, with possible exception of 2009 Safari, IIRC [1]. And absolutely agree that defensive @supports is better and more robust way to go. Just aimed to ameliorate the, from my point of view wrong and dangerous pattern using `color: transparent` the easiest possible "drop-in" that would encourage keeping the "normal" `color` intact and only introducing `-webkit-text-fill-color: transparent` on top of that. It seemed like a pattern (lazy) develoers would follow more likely
[1] https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/2638 Made some research while suggesting to promote better approach and point to caveats in the "authoritative" MDN article and partially succeeded. (Sadly, there are `color: transparent`s used in examples there now, but… at least I've tried.)
And fighting them is increasingly difficult, but at least somewhat possible:
- VSC luckily still supports
we can turn off; and if they will be marginally clever, it will remain there indefinitely.On the web, we can use userstyles sharpening most dulled corners [1]. And if you happen to have seen upcoming Firefox skin, it is also pill addict's fewer dream. We can use userChrome.css, but web components are making it very cumbersome and fragile, basically constantly adding new custom properties, being glad they are really used [2]. But I digress. I really look forward for this pill mania to wear off, like wet floors, glitters, and similar fads.
[1] https://userstyles.world/style/8283/
[2] https://gist.github.com/myfonj/f5415dd0580663a82ea18407ef2ee...