usingpond

My last gig forced us to use Asana for ticketing (!!!). It's meant as a Basecamp-like tool but I'm not sure if it delivers on that either.

Currently we use Confluence for documentation, which, like many other Atlassian products, is lacking notable features compared to cheaper competitors. Other than that, we're great: Exchange, Slack, Github (including issues), etc

Google for Business or w/e would be great, but there is no way a company this size is gonna do that.

I always ask this of full-stack/backend devs who shit on frontend: show us what you've managed to build with that attitude.

Maybe we're both misunderstanding, but I think they meant "User Experience". Surely you agree that this is an important consideration in software development?

To contribute some anecdotal findings to the larger IT discussion in the thread, a lot of it comes down to this IMHO...

There are three levels of understanding of personal computers and how to manage them:

A) Basic understanding, the vast majority of users/clients B) Intermediate understanding, you often find yourself walking your relatives through setting up their mail client C) Expert understanding, you have deep knowledge of networking and user permissions for each computer on this network. You don't use apps to figure this out, you have set it up, tried it, and are proud of a system you have designed to make it all work.

I've found that many issues arise from folks working in IT whom are B that think they are C, and the frustration from not having Macs work identically as their Windows networking wizards causes friction. I think as people are getting better trained in BYOD, and the fact that there's no way around better IT training to accommodate it, is causing a sea change in adopting Macs.

Not that I think OP is very good, but '31201 bytes' has little to do with UI, unless you are talking about the specific use case of a slow connection.

what exactly is not cool about that?

lol, everyone be sure to check out NYT on Glassdoor before applying.

Also, when the dinosaur is fighting the Nazi robot, the Swastika flips sides.

Boy, I sure hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

Take a wild guess. (hint: they're dumb)

Lateness is often considered rude because it shows you don't care about something. If this is a situation where that assumption is correct, then it's time to move on to a new job.

Late for meetings makes you a jerk. If you get your shit done and show up later than some arbitrary "start time" at work... your boss has a right to be like "c'mon dude" but not to penalize you. That's childish and petty, and another reason to move on.

The author is pretty open about this not being anywhere near ready. It would be better if they were open about the possibility of this loophole being patched up in the spec, making this a pretty useless trick.

You can put "C developer" on your resume, good luck shopping around "Typescript developer" experience.

No, that's Angular that has the perf issues.

- Not-so-great documentation.

- Lengthy learning curve.

- Not concerned with performance at all (can be a nightmare on mobile devices with low RAM).

- Google's history of throwing away and/or deprecating projects, (see Angular v1).

- I still have yet to see a Google website using Angular in any large capacity.

- Ecosystem lock-in. It tries to do a LOT of stuff, and you generally need to be doing all these things the Angular Way™.

As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?

Not at all, the author praises Backbone. The learning curve, busted syntax, and performance issues unfortunately ARE specific to Angular, that's the entire point of the article.

"generic disagreement with browser-side rendering" re-read the article. Author has no issue with Ember or Backbone.

Not if you're in an environment (like mobile) where you want to reduce repaint.

So is it the obvious usability fail that this statement would seem?

In some apps, yes, but in many others they are just as atrocious as they've always been—just adhering to material design a bit more. For example, Chrome on iOS has a pretty wonderful UX but Maps is a shitshow; it takes me several frustrated clicks to do what I want. You can never tell what a UI element does simply by looking at the screen.

Many of these are:

1) Much less legible, and in some cases outright lazy 2) Extremely vulnerable to Javascript's fast-and-loose type checking.

However it's good to be AWARE of them, since you tend to see them a lot in team projects.

What? Care to give some context for discussion instead of promoting your site?

Yes you should use it. We name feature branches after JIRA tickets for accountability and transparency. It's made tracking branches and tickets associated with them super easy and fast.

You've got nothing to lose, it's essentially just a naming convention for git. You won't be locked into anything.

"...if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."

Is this satire? How can anybody hold this viewpoint and not think of themselves as human garbage.

By that logic, Google should only care about their sites working in Chrome?

Also, any web developer should be thoroughly embarrassed if their unintentionally have Times on their site. That is an unequivocal "something got fucked up" error, especially because it means you didn't care enough to make a fallback.

I strongly disagree with your analogy.

Chrome is not a superficially better browser—as a web developer I can attest that Chrome beats out Firefox in myriad ways. Candy has no value other than flavor, and is actually bad for you. The advent of Google's release of Chrome (and the collaboration between Google and Apple engineers on WebKit) has launched the web forward at a speed that Firefox has been struggling to keep up with. That INCLUDES security and openness, not just new prefixed CSS properties.

The browser war was Firefox's to lose, and they dropped the ball. They weren't ready for Chrome, and have yet to catch up.

I'm going to keep asking every time a Microsoft website is posted:

Why don't they embed their fonts? Indifference? Laziness? Ineptitude?

Obviously I don't mean this retro landing page, just click through to any other page of theirs. It's all Times and Arial.

babby's first scroll-hijacking landing page. In addition to shit usability, the heavy dependency on jQuery plugins is a big clue.

It's silly that all the anti-IE comments are being downvoted. IE8, 9, 10 and 11 are still complete shit and the debug tools are even worse. Microsoft talks a good game about implementing all these standards but I experience bugs regularly in Trident, even when I was developing something specifically for it a few months back. It's a completely primitive and glitchy browser that doesn't need to exist.

Firefox has had its problems too recently, but at least it's open source and they're trying. Microsoft has literally nothing going for them on this front.

Microsoft's web developers are pretty notoriously horrendous in both their approach and execution.

One common mistake across ALL Microsoft sites is not bothering to embed their fonts, or declare fallbacks. So it looks great on their boss' computer but everybody else gets goddamned Times New Roman.