@dogstar Markov chain text (or any data) generator

@khm Ginsu Package Manager: but wait, there's more!

@dogstar Modifier keys help when the mouse is a regular 2-button mouse, but not when I need to draw a rectangle with some crappy laptop touchpad. Or when I need to select something in a menu that disappears when I let go of the mouse button

@dogstar For me, having to deal with subpar keyboard is passable, but being forced to use a bad mouse is a nightmare. That's why I don't like rio: it's good with good 3-b mouse, but it refuses to offer an alternative when I‌ need it.

@neauoire Yeah, for example the GNU project states that "freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is a requirement for software to be "free". And at the same time it's like they do everything to make their code hard to understand. Ew

@tennoseremel In your responses to me there's one reasonable argument: the one about malfunctioning mouse. I addressed that by saying that confirmation dialogs don't solve that problem (yeah I can see it as an additional layer but I don't think it's worth it) and proposed an alternative solution. You're calling it absurd and I don't know why.

The rest is just snarky comments ("there's a reason and you might pretend it doesn't matter" & "everything you don't believe in is wrong"), all irrelevant

@tennoseremel Hey, I'm ready to change my mind, but you should at least provide a counterargument?

And what exactly makes it absurd? The first confirmation or the second confirmation dialog?

@tennoseremel
What's going to stop your mouse from going crazy on you when you're interacting with a confirmation dialog? Oh, we can fix that by adding one more confirmation dialog.

Or maybe instead fix the problem at its source. If your mouse is unreliable, don't use it for dangerous tasks. There are multiple ways to do that. Also, as a UX designer, don't put the "format my drive" button next to any other button the user might want to click.

@tennoseremel
And the confirmation dialog won't save you from typos/misclicks, because people usually notice that after the fact. So I don't need to pretend because there is no reason for using a confirmation dialog.

@tennoseremel
To format a drive you need to switch to some sort of an administrative account, authenticate, select a drive formatting tool, choose a drive to format and issue a command by pressing enter or clicking a button that says 'format the drive'. You can't do that by accident.

Unless you've been trained by a bad UX designer to click/type shit you don't understand.

@tennoseremel @khm
User: computer, please format the drive I'm pointing at
Computer: *formats the drive*
User: surprised_pikachu.jpeg

If you give users a way to do an action without them knowing what's going to happen - that's a poor UX. A confirmation dialog with just "Are you sure?‌" is clearly not an improvement. Telling them about the effects after they expressed the intent ("this will destroy your data") is admitting your design is bad. They should know what's going to happen *beforehand*

@khm I've always thought that the term 'maker' is reserved for a certain class of people who are able to create various physical items on their own, as opposed to people who only do one thing (craftsman?).

I'd expect much more broad set of skills from someone who calls himself a 'maker' than from a regular carpenter, upholsterer or electrical engineer. So maybe the vagueness is intentional as a way to underline that

I have a second piece of paper (in my back pocket) with some other word on it, just to make sure I'm never lost.

Show thread

I stopped writing shopping lists. I don't need them. I just carry a piece of paper with "the usual" written on it. I can go to a store and buy the same things I usually buy without having to remember anything, because I have it on paper.

It also helps when someone asks me what did I have for breakfast.

@chirrolafupa @csepp

>"suscripciones|subscriptions"...

>"su(b)scrip(c|t)ion(e)s" as a template?

su(b)?scrip(?(1)t|c)ion(?(1)|e)s

@chirrolafupa You can't do this with "classic", formal regular expressions (any "improvement" would be just a syntax sugar and the underlying FA would be the same).

However, with some of these ugly modern regex engines you can check if a numbered capture group has been set: (t)?he(?(1)y) should work in PCRE. Look for "regex conditionals" or "regex if clause" if you want, but as @csepp already mentioned, that's a job for a more powerful grammar.

programming facts 

@khm God I love learning things!

If I could go back in time I would prevent this toot from being written

Show older
Mastodon @ SDF

"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko