Not gone, but that's the direction we're heading (hopefully).
> it may currently still be best to use a framework or library to present these, or to use a custom input of your own. Another option is to use separate date and time inputs, each of which is more widely supported than datetime-local
I literally waited years for this. This year I opted to change a backend date input from datetime-local to date and time input input fields, after waiting too long for browser support. The datetime-local field got added 2014, "browsers will support it soon"...
Which browser does not support it (if we can exclude IE 11)? And if some obscure browser does not support, it will just fallback to input[type=text], so no big deal. I'm really looking forward to get rid of all these JS implementations which can't properly handle keyboard / touch / screenreader / whatever comes.
Fair gripes, although bikes have "dealerships" too that will typically help you select and maintain your steed.
The problem with lighted turn signals is that motorists don't expect them, and don't look for them. Pointing with your hand and head are just more safe and effective.
> how the bike should be totally custom
Ignore them. It should be what suits you, what makes you feel comfortable and safe when you ride.
> Why don't more people bike?
There's also not a lot of infrastructure outside of major cities (in the US). Unsafe for cyclists, annoying (at best) for motorists.
> the entire biking community, culture
Let's not paint too broadly, there are plenty of elitists, but big parts of the cycling community are inclusive; community rides, community maintenance co-ops, things like that.
One drawback being how easy today's derailleurs are to adjust and tune with simple tools. Run the cable, set the High, set the Low, and you're done.
> the Ford derailleur appears to be aimed at the e-bike market
...and possibly pros? They mention Di2 in here, I don't know anyone (outside of Freds) that are riding Dura-Ace-level grouppos that actually do their own maintenance, so this probably won't be targeted to enthusiasts.
Di2 (and SRAM's equivalent AXS) has been getting aggressively trickled down the groupset line and the price has been dropping precipitously. It's a bit obscured by the ongoing supply chain issues, though.
Electronic shifting will become a standard, or at least a common option, on mid-range 105/Rival bikes ($2-4k) within the next few years most likely. The same way hydraulic disc brakes have trickled down over the past several years.
I still ride mechanical myself, but have friends with electronic shifting and they rave about it. It's nearly zero maintenance because it's self-adjusting. Just lube it and clean it, and replace the chain every few thousand miles.
Even though electronic shifting may be "better" I still find a beautiful simplicity in the all-mechanical nature of a bicycle.
Is that a term now? It is no longer that the norm a bicycle, and you have to specify if it's uses electricity. Now you specify that you ride "mechanical"?
The world is changing or the e-bike sellers are doing some great marketing.
I was referring to my derailleurs being traditional cable-pull mechanical instead of electronic, not e-bikes.
I think human-powered bikes are still the assumed norm, but the surging popularity of e-bikes may start challenging that soon, especially for practical purposes as opposed to recreational purposes.
Reddit had large, high-contrast text and tap targets. Downvoted comments did not have their color contrast reduced. If we're getting specific, HN does not look that similar.
There's "bad design" (subjective) then there's "fails to meet accessibility standards" (objective). HN would not pass WCAG 2.0 AA for a large number of reasons. Tap targets and illegible text being big ones.
It doesn't matter if you can zoom into text when downvoted comments have so little contrast with the background (#ddd over #f6f6ef). The "X minutes ago", "hide", "edit" comment header links even fail without zooming.
Agreed, it's not accessible; if you write your own accessible theme, it will have an accessible theme.
Your apartment building doesn't have a wheelchair ramp? That's on purpose. If you don't agree with it it's trivial to buy a bag of concrete and build one.
> Your apartment building doesn't have a wheelchair ramp? That's on purpose. If you don't agree with it it's trivial to buy a bag of concrete and build one.
That's a bad metaphor. First it's not possible to build a wheelchair ramp in your apartment building without affecting everyone else. Second, a custom CSS is very easy to make compared to a wheelchair ramp. Third, the comments being hard to read is, again, on purpose. I don't know the precise reason behind it, from what I understand it's part of the numerous tools that HN has to try to be a better place for discussion online than the rest. Some other tools seems to be: dead comments not being visible by default, new accounts having their names highlighted, the "reply" button not being here on "deep" threads in the "regular tree view".
If you don't agree with this decision, that's fine but that doesn't mean everyone is aligned with you.
I don't think it's that hard for non web developers. The rule is commtext { color: black; }. I think that adding an option (like showdead) would be better, as it doesn't require people to take the time to find out by themselves. Again, your comparaison doesn't really hold.
> Being inaccessible on purpose doesn't change the fact that it's inaccessible.
No it's not, it's more complicated: https://pastebin.com/aMYiGr05 (and there's no "commtext" class). So it's literally harder than you think, and you're presumably a developer. So how about the average user?
> It explains why it still is though.
Um, ok? And the building only has stairs because the architect didn't consider the needs of people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs. What's your point? "Why?" was not in question.
There is a commtext class tough. Tested on Chrome and Firefox. I don't know what your linked pastebin does but if you just want all the comments to show up as black text, the rule commtext { color: black; } in the body is all you need. Please check that kind of information by yourself before assuming that I'm wrong.
> Um, ok? And the building only has stairs because the architect didn't consider the needs of people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs.
Using metaphors doesn't help, they don't hold. Unless you assume that there is some people that are considered undesirable and that are also being kept out by having only stairs? And that aren't correlated to people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs?
> What's your point? "Why?" was not in question.
Why is why not in question? HN breaks accessibility guidelines in an easily fixable ways for reasons that are related to the primary purpose of the website. I think at this point it's just a difference of values between us. You seem to think that accessibility guidelines should matter above everything, I think it's fine to break them when it's needed for the "purpose" of the website. One other example of that would be "old internet" website, with flashing text, non-legible text and everything. On these websites, not respecting the guidelines is fine for me.
Do you understand what a "class" is in HTML? Do you understand that the class "commtext" doesn't appear anywhere in the source code for HN? The comment colors are controlled by classes like "c00" etc. Chrome has a tool called "DevTools" you can use that will show you. Here's the CSS for this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/news.css
Again, you don't understand it, but want to tell everyone else how easy it is...
> not respecting the guidelines is fine for me
in contrast I think everyone should be able to use the web, that it should be accessible. This isn't important to you, but sometimes you have to think about other people with a limited set of abilities in a compassionate way. The GP mentions "bad design" and I mentioned an objective measure: text that can't be read by someone without writing code.
Why are you looking at the CSS and not at the HTML? Look at the HTML, and you'll see that every comment is inside an HTML element (usually a span) that has a commtext class.
> Again, you don't understand it, but want to tell everyone else how easy it is...
Again, you haven't checked and just assume you are right.
We can continue the conversation about values once you've learned how to use "show source" or the inspector.
These guidelines are great but none mitigate the disruptiveness and other negative impacts of today's hostile web.
It's not like I'm looking away from my monitor every 5 seconds and then completely forget where I am or what I was doing. Understanding the content is also not an issue.
The real problem is the insidiousness of the advertisements themselves.
No one wants to see newsletter signup popovers, but "modern web design" includes good performance and relevant content. (The search engine itself takes about 2 seconds to first contentful paint, not great.)
This search engine pretty much takes everything that Google is doing and does the opposite. For instance, Google has decided that "relevant" usually also means "recent". Thus, when searching for something on Google, you mainly get results from blogspam farms and almost never do you see anything more than a few years old.
An implication of this is that old sites tend to disappear (either into obscurity or by being taken down) because Google penalizes them in search rankings. The author of this search engine says, however:
> If a webpage has been around for a long time, then odds are it has fundamental redeeming quality that has motivated keeping it around all for that time.
I don't know that I agree 100% with this (there was lots of crap on the "old" web too), but it makes a certain amount of sense.
What "fundamental redeeming quality" about uninstalling AIM from Windows 3.x motivated making that the 3rd result for "dog"?
The 5th result is a tutorial on CSS. This search engine decided it's relevant because it has "dog" in the URL. Is that a better reasoning than Google's? https://htmldog.com/guides/css/beginner/
Core Web Vitals ranks sites higher that perform well. Text-heavy sites that are also optimized and relevant would already perform well.
What are you searching for when you enter the query "dog", keeping in mind the search engine deliberately does not examine synonyms or and deliberately seeks out the path less taken?
Your suggestion of "dog facts" returns 6 pages from the same domain, dogquotes.com. It's unreadable on mobile because it's so old, all the facts are unsourced, and often wrong:
> Never assume that a barking dog won't bute [sic], unless you're absolutely certain the dog believes it too.
Also on the 1st SERP, this odd blog post ranting about 4th amendment rights [1], "Media Glamorization of the Psychopath" [2], and this (image-heavy) page about dolphin encounters in the Bahamas ("Sea Dog Facts" is a link on the page).
I found this post [1] but it seems a but outdated and references AMP, which Core Web Vital metrics are supposed to replace (right?).
https://danluu.com/web-bloat/