It is incredible how far we’ve come in the coverage of events. In the past, I recorded my own talks as audio as not many conferences offered video recordings (and wrote about this as a good idea in the developer evangelism handbook). These days I find myself having not having to do this as most conferences and even meetups record talks. Faster upload speeds and simple, free hosting on YouTube and others made that possible.
And yet it is expensive and a lot of work to record and publish videos of your conference. And if you don’t make any money with them it is a bit of advertising for your event with a lot of overhead. That’s why it is a shame to see just how low the viewing numbers of some great conference videos are. When talking to conference organisers, I heard some astonishingly low numbers. The only thing to boost them seems to be to deliver them one after the other with dedicated social media promotion. Which, again, is a lot of extra effort.
In order to see what would make people watch more conference talks, I took a quick Twitter poll:
Poll time: what would make you watch more conference videos?
I love watching conference talk videos. I watch them offline, on an iPod in the gym or on planes and trains. Basically when I am not able to do anything else, they are a great way to spend your time and learn something. There are a few things to consider to make this worth my while though:
The talk needs to make sense to watch on a small screen. Lots of live code in a terminal with a 12px font isn’t. That is not to say these aren’t good talks. They are just not working as a video.
The talk needs to be available offline (I use YouTube DL to download YouTube videos, some publishers on Vimeo offer downloads, Channel 9 always has the videos to download)
The talk needs to be contained in itself – it is frustrating to hear references to things I should know or bits that happened at the same event I wasn’t part of. It is even more annoying to see a Q&A session where you wait for the mic to arrive for ages or the presenter answering without me knowing what the question is.
I’ve written about the Q&A part of videos in detail before and I strongly believe that cutting a standard Q&A will result in more viewers and happier presenters. For starters, the videos will be shorter and it feels like less of an effort to watch the talk when it is 25 minutes instead of 45-50.
At technical events I am OK with some of these annoyances. After all, it is more important to entertain the audience at the event. And it is amazing when presenters take the time and effort to see other talks and reference them. However, there is a lot of benefit to consider the quality and consumption of a recording, too.
Having recordings of conference talks is an amazing gift to the community. People who can’t afford to go to events or even can’t afford to travel can still stay up-to-date and learn about topics to deep dive into by watching videos. Easy to consume, short and to the point videos can be a great way to increase the diversity of our market.
“You are here to talk to the online audience”
When I spoke at some TEDx events, this was the advice of the speaking coaches and organisers. TED is a known brand to have high quality online content. And it is almost unaffordable to go to the main TED events. Which makes this advice kind of odd, but their success online shows that there are on to something.
TED talks are much shorter than the average conference talk. They are more performance than presentation. And they come with transcripts and are downloadable.
Now, we can’t have only these kind of talks at events. But maybe it is a good plan to do some editing on the recordings and turn them into more of an experience than a record of what happened on stage that gets delivered as soon as possible. This means extra work and is some overhead, for sure. But I wonder how much of it could be automated already.
In addition to the poll results there were some other good points in the comments on Twitter and Facebook.
Less of the speaker upper body and more of the slides. Or slides to download. Also, speakers who pace themselves to sound good at 1.5x speed.
It seems to be pretty common by people who spend time watching talks to speed them up. This is an interesting concept. Good editing between slides and presenter was a wish a lot of people had. It shouldn’t be hard to publish the slides along with the video, and something presenters should consider doing more.
Not on the list but “editing” plus a solid couple of paragraphs of what the talk covers and why I should or shouldn’t watch it.
This is another easy thing for presenters to do. We’re always asked to offer a description and title of the talk that should zing and get people excited. Providing a second one that is more descriptive to use with the video isn’t that much overhead.
For English spokers, most of the conferences, no problem. But for non English spokers, massive failure. Reading is really more easy trying to listen and understand. Some guys speaks really fast. So I can’t understand talks.
This is a common problem and a presenter skill to work on. Being understandable by non-native speakers is a huge opportunity. So, some pacing and avoiding slang references are always a good idea.
The possibility to download the videos on tablets, smartphones and laptops so I can see them during commuting time
Offering videos to download should be not too hard. If you’re not planning to sell them anyways, why not?
Also offline availabilty with chapter marks/timestamps. I’ll vote for transcripts for skim reading to get to the gold nuggets. But sometimes a good speaker is an enjoyable 50min experience. I’d rather read transcripts. I never get blocks of quiet. Links to slides to follow along, or (even better) closed captions so I can play them muted If they were shorter and had a PowerPoint with main points to download after
This, of course, is the big one. A lot of people asked for transcripts, chapters and time stamps. Either for accessibility reasons or just because it is easier to skim and jump to what is important to you. This costs time and effort.
And here we have a Catch-22: if not many people watch the recordings of an event, conference organisers and companies don’t want to spend that time and effort. Manual transcription, editing and captioning isn’t cheap.
The good news is that automated transcription has gone leaps and bounds in the last years. With the need to have voice commands on mobiles and home appliances a lot of companies concentrated on getting this much better than it used to be.
(Yes, this is by the company I work for, but it came as a surprise to me that this offer brings together many machine learning APIs in a simple interface.)
Using VideoIndexer, you not only generate an editable time-stamped transcript, but you also get emotion recognition, image to text conversion of video content, speaker recognition and keyword extraction. That way you to offer an interface that allows people to jump where they want to without having to scrub through the video. I’d love to see more offers like these and I am sure there are quite a few out there already in use by big TV companies and sports broadcasters.
All in all I am grateful to have the opportunity to watch talks of events I couldn’t be at and I’m making an effort to be a better online citizen by providing better descriptions and be more aware of how what I am saying can be consumed as a video afterwards.
My favourite quote in the comments was from Tessa Mero:
Would be fun watching it with someone so we can discuss the content during/after the video. Need social engagement to make learning more fun.
Videos of talks are a great opportunity to learn something and have fun with your colleagues in the office. Pick a room, set up a machine connected to the beamer, get some snacks in, watch the talk and discuss how it applies to your work afterwards. Conference organisers spend a lot of effort to record talks, presenters put a lot in to make the talk exciting and educational. And you can benefit from all of that for free.
console.log() which means you debug in your editor and add and remove debugging steps there
watches which means you instruct the (browser) developer tools to log automatically when changes happen
debugger; which means you debug in your editor but jump into the (browser) developer tools
breakpoints which means you debug in your (browser) developer tools
The reason was that having worked with editors and developer tools in browsers, I was curious how much either are used. I also wanted to challenge my own impression of being a terrible developer for not using the great tools we have to the fullest. Frankly, I feel overwhelmed with the offerings and choices we have and I felt that I am pretty much set in my ways of developing.
Developer tools for the web have been going leaps and bounds in the last years and a lot of effort of browser makers goes into them. They are seen as a sign of how important the browser is. The overall impression is that when you get the inner circle of technically savvy people excited about your product, the others will follow. Furthermore, making it easier to build for your browser and giving developers insights as to what is going on should lead to better products running in your browser.
I love the offerings we have in browser developer tools these days, but I don’t quite find myself using all the functionality. Turns out, I am not alone:
The results of 3970 votes in my survey where overwhelmingly in favour of console.log() as a debugging mechanism.
As with any too simple poll about programming, a lot of them argued with the questioning and rightfully pointed out that people use a combination of all of them.
There was also a lot of questioning why alert() wasn’t an option as this is even easier than console().
There was quite some confusion about debugger; – seems it isn’t that common
There was only a small amount of trolling – thanks.
There was also quite a few mentions of how tests and test driven development makes debugging unimportant.
What this shows me is a few things I’ve encountered myself doing:
Developers who’ve been developing in a browser world have largely been conditioned to use simple editors, not IDEs. We’ve been conditioned to use a simple alert() or console.log() in our code to find out that something went wrong. In a lot of cases, this is “good enough”
With browser developer tools becoming more sophisticated, we use breakpoints and step-by-step debugging when there are more baffling things to figure out. After all, console.log() doesn’t scale when you need to track various changes. It is, however, not our first go-to. This is still adding something in our code, rather than moving away from the editor to the debugger
Why aren’t we using breakpoint debugging?
There should not be any question that breakpoint debugging in vastly superior to simply writing values into the console from our code:
You get proper inspection of the whole state and environment instead of one value
You get all the other insights proper debuggers give you like memory consumption, performance and so on
It is a cleaner way of development. All that goes in your code is what is needed for execution. You don’t mix debugging and functionality. A stray console.log() can give out information that could be used as an attack vector. A forgotten alert() is a terrible experience for our end users. A forgotten “debugger;” or breakpoint is a lot less likely to happen as it does pause execution of our code. I also remember that in the past, console.log() in loops had quite a performance impact of our code.
Developers who are used to an IDE to create their work are much more likely to know their way around breakpoint debugging and use it instead of extra code. I’ve been encountering a lot of people in my job that would never touch a console.log() or an alert() since I started working in Microsoft. As one response of the poll rightfully pointed out it is simpler:
It's even longer to write console.log than to put a breakpoint...
So, why do we then keep using console logging in our code rather than the much more superior way of debugging code that our browser tooling gives us?
I think it boils down to a few things:
Convenience and conditioning – we’ve been doing this for years, and it is easy. We don’t need to change and we feel familiar with this kind of back and forth between editor and browser
Staying in one context – we write our code in our editors, and we spent a lot of time customising and understanding that one. We don’t want to spend the same amount of work on learning debuggers when logging is good enough
Inconvenience of differences in implementation – whilst most debuggers work the same there are differences in their interfaces. It feels taxing to start finding your way around these.
The latter is the big one that stops people embracing the concept of more sophisticated debugging workflows. Developers who are used to start with IDEs are much more used to breakpoint debugging. The reason is that it is built into their development tools rather than requiring a switch of context. The downsides of IDEs is that they have a high barrier to entry. They are much more complex tools than text editors, many are expensive and above all they are huge. It is not fun to download a few Gigabyte for each update and frankly for some developers it is not even possible.
How I started embracing breakpoint debugging
One thing that made it much easier for me to embrace breakpoint debugging is switching to Visual Studio Code as my main editor. It is still a light-weight editor and not a full IDE (Visual Studio, Android Studio and XCode are also on my machine, but I dread using them as my main development tool) but it has in-built breakpoint debugging. That way I have the convenience of staying in my editor and I get the insights right where I code.
For a node.js environment, you can see this in action in this video:
Are hackable editors, linters and headless browsers the answer?
I’m even more a fan of linters in editors. I like that Word tells me I wrote terrible grammar by showing me squiggly green or red underlines. I like that an editor flags up problems with your code whilst you code it. It seems a better way to teach than having people make mistakes, load the results in a browser and then see what went wrong in the browser tools. It is true that it is a good way to get accustomed to using those and – let’s be honest – our work is much more debugging than coding. But by teaching new developers about environments that tell them things are wrong before they even save them we might turn this ratio around.
I’m looking forward to more movement in the editor space and I love that we are able to run code in a browser and get results back without having to switch the user context to that browser. There’s a lot of good things happening and I want to embrace them more.
We build more complex products these days – for good or for worse. It may be time to reconsider our development practices and – more importantly – how we condition newcomers when we tell them to work like we learned it.
Literally any website can—and should—be a progressive web app. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I was at an event last year where I heard Chris Heilmann say that you shouldn’t make your blog into a progressive web app. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. He repeats that message in this video chat: “When somebody, for example, turns their blog into a PWA, I don’t see the point. I don’t want to have that icon on my homepage. This doesn’t make any sense to me” Excuse me!? Just because you don’t want to have someone’s icon on your home screen, that person shouldn’t be using state-of-the-art technologies!? Excuse my French, but Fuck. That. Shit!
Our imaginations have become so limited by what native mobile apps currently do that we can’t see past merely imitating the status quo like a sad cargo cult.
I don’t want the web to equal native; I want the web to surpass it. I, for one, would prefer a reality where my home screen isn’t filled with the icons of startups and companies that have fulfilled the criteria of the gatekeepers. But a home screen filled with the faces of people who didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission to publish? That’s what I want!
Suffice to say, I am not telling anyone not to use great, modern technologies to the benefit of their end users and their own publishing convenience. And the stack that make up PWA are great to make either more successful than it is now.
I want us to do more. I want modern web technologies not to be a personal thing to use. I want it to be what we do at work, not to bring to work or point to at some amazing web person’s web presence or a showcase of a large web company.
All power to us for using whatever great technology in the environment we control, but we need to aim higher. We need to go where mistakes happen and bring the convenience and sensible upgrades to hacky old solutions. I don’t have the power to tell anyone not to use something on their blog. But I also don’t want to have a lot of things out there touted as “PWAs” that are a terrible experience. We’ve done that over and over with all kind of packaging formats. We need to get it right this time as our tools have never been better.
I publicly spoke out over and over again against stores in the current form as they are a barrier to access. A barrier that seems artificial, when we have the web, right?
Maybe. Fact is that a whole new generation of people know apps. Not the web. They know the web as something riddled with ads and malware you need blockers for. In some places where the web is not as conveniently available as it is where we are people even consider Facebook the web. As it is made available to people easier than the bloated web.
When I say that I don’t see the point of turning a blog into a PWA it hits exactly the confusion point of the “app” part. To me, an app is a “do” thing, not a “read” thing. I see no point in having the Wired, the Guardian, The Rolling Stone, The Times etc… app. Icons on a crammed desktop don’t scale. I use a news reader to read news items. I use an RSS aggregator to read blogs. I use an ebook reader to read books (or a browser). I use Spotify or iTunes to listen to music. I don’t have an app for each band or movie.
I’ve been publishing for donkey’s years on the web. And I choose to use a blog as I have no idea how you consume it. And I like that. I don’t think there should be a “Chris Heilmann” icon on your desktop. It should be in the contacts, it should maybe show up as a post or a bookmark. You can’t do anything on this blog except for reading it. Use what makes you most happy to do that.
I very much agree with Jeremy:
I don’t want the web to equal native; I want the web to surpass it.
And that’s exactly what I mean when I don’t want a blog as an app – no matter what format of app. I want people to create PWAs that are more than bookmarks – even offline working ones that give me a notification when new content is available.
Does this mean I say that you shouldn’t use a manifest and service worker to improve web pages or your blog? Hell, no. Go wild – do the right thing. Especially do the one thing that PWAs require: stop publishing over HTTP and secure your servers. Man in the middle attacks need to stop, especially with various governments happily being that man in the middle.
I want the web to succeed where it matters. I want native apps to go away. I don’t want to download an app to get tickets to the subway in Berlin. I don’t want an app for each airport I go to. I very much don’t want an app for each event I attend. I don’t want an app for each restaurant I frequent. I don’t need those relationships and having to give them a part of the limited space on my phone. Or on my desktop/launch bar.
We need the web to beat native where it is terrible: distribution and convenience. I want people to do things without having to go to a store, download and install an app and run it. I want people to get access to free content without a credit card. You need a credit card to access free stuff on app stores – this is a huge barrier. I want people to find the next train, book restaurants, get a doctor and find things regardless of connection and device. I want people to take pictures and sharing them. I don’t want people to use insecure, outdated versions of their apps as it is too much to get 50MB updates every day. I don’t want people to use what comes on the phone and use the browser as the last resort. And for this, we need great PWAs of known entities and great new players.
I want people to understand that they are in control. As I said last week in Poland, PWA is proper try before you buy. You go to a URL, you like what you see. With later visits you promote it to get more access, work offline and even give you notifications.
A PWA has to earn that right. And this is where we need kick-ass examples. I have no native Twitter any more, Twitter Lite does the trick and saves me a lot of data and space. I go around showing this to people and I see them kick out native Twitter. That’s what we need.
Every time we promote the web as the cool thing it is we repeat the same points.
It is easy to publish
it is available for everyone
it is not beholden to anyone
It is independent of platform, form factor and generally inviting.
When you see the web that millions of people use every day the story is very different.
It is that bad that every browser maker has a department of cross-browser compliance. We all approach big companies pointing out how their products break and what can be done to fix them. We even offer developer resources to not rely on that webkit prefix. In almost all cases we get asked what the business benefit of that is.
Sure, we have a lot of small victories, but it is grim to show someone the web these days. In our bubble, things are great and amazing.
How did that happen? We have the technology. We have the knowledge. We have the information out there in hundreds of talks, books and posts. Who do we reach is the question. Who builds this horrible web? Or who builds great stuff at home and gets mostly frustrated at work because things are beyond repair?
When I say that I don’t want a blog as an app I am not saying that you shouldn’t supercharge your blog. I am not forbidding anyone to publish and use technology.
But, I don’t think that is enough. We need commercial successes. We need to beat the marketing of native apps. We need to debunk myths of native convenience by building better, web based, solutions.
We’ve proven the web works well for self-publishing. Now we need to go where people build an iOS and Android app to have an online presence for their company with higher functionality. We need these people to understand that the web is a great way to publish and get users that do things with your product. We think this is common sense, but it isn’t. We have to remind people again about how great the web is. And how much easier it is using web technology.
For this, we need first and foremost find out how to make money on the web on a huge scale. We need to find a way that people pay for content instead of publishers showing a lot of ads as the simpler way. We need to show numbers and successes of commercial, existing products. Google is spending a lot of money on that with PWA roadshows. Every big web company does. I also all work directly with partners to fix their web products across browsers and turn them into PWAs. And there are some great first case studies available. We need more of those.
I want developers not to have to use their spare time and learn new web technologies on their personal projects. I want companies to understand the value of PWA and – most importantly – fix the broken nonsense they have on the web and keep in maintenance mode.
If you think these and other PWA case studies are by chance and because people involved just love the web – think again. A lot of effort goes into convincing companies to do the “very obvious” thing. A lot of cost of time and money is involved. A lot of internal developers put their career on the line to tell their superiors that there is another way instead of delivering what’s wanted. We want this to work, and we need to remind people that quality means effort. Not adding a manifest and a service worker to an existing product that has been in maintenance hell for years.
Jeremy wants a certain world:
I, for one, would prefer a reality where my home screen isn’t filled with the icons of startups and companies that have fulfilled the criteria of the gatekeepers. But a home screen filled with the faces of people who didn’t have to ask anyone’s permission to publish? That’s what I want!
I want more. I want the commercial world and the marketing hype of “online” not to be about native apps and closed stores. I don’t want people to think it is OK to demand an iPhone to access their content. I don’t want companies to waste money trying to show up in an app store when they could easily be found on the web. I think we already have the world Jeremy describes. And – to repeat – I don’t want anyone not to embrace this if they want to or they think it is a good idea.
Nothing necessary to turn your current web product into a PWA is a waste. All steps are beneficial to the health and quality of your product. That is the great part. But it does mean certain quality goals should be met to avoid users with an “app” expectation not getting what they want. We have to discuss these quality goals and right now quite a few companies roll out their ideas. This doesn’t mean we censor the web or lock out people (there are other people working on that outside of companies). It means we don’t want another “HTML5 Apps are a bad experience” on our hands.
I’ve been running this blog for ages. I learned a lot. That’s great. But I don’t want the web to be a thing for people already believing in it. I want everyone to use it instead of silos like app stores – especially commercial companies. We’ve been shirking away from the responsibility of making the enterprise and products people use day to day embrace the web for too long. The current demise of the native/app store model is a great opportunity to do this. I want everyone with the interest and knowledge to be part of this.
I can’t see myself ever having a phone full with the faces of people. This is what the address book is for. The same way my ebook reader (which is my browser) is what I use to read books. I don’t have an app for each author.
I like the concept of having a feed reader to check in bulk what people that inspire me are up to. I like reading aggregators that do the searching for me. And if I want to talk to the people behind those publications I contact them and talk to them. Or – even better – meet them.
An app – to me – is a thing I do something with. This blog is an app for me, but not for others. You can’t edit. I even turned off comments as I spent more time moderating than answering. That’s why it isn’t a PWA. I could turn it into one, but then I would feel that I should publish a lot more once you promoted me to be on your home screen.
So when I talk about personal blogs not being PWAs to me, this is what I mean. Apps to me are things to do things with. If I can’t do anything with it except for reading and sharing I don’t stop you from publishing it as a PWA. But I am not likely to install it. The same way I don’t download the Kim Kardashian app or apps of bands.
This is not about your right to publish. It is about earning the space in the limited environment that is our user’s home screens, docks and desktops. If you’re happy to have that full of friend’s blogs or people you like – great. I’d rather soon see phones in shops that out-of-the-box come with PWAs for people to do things. Not native apps that need a 200MB update the first time you connect and won’t get that upgrade and become a security risk. I want web access to be front and centre on new devices. And to do that, we need to aim higher and do better.
Posted in General | Comments Off on Any web site can become a PWA – but we need to do better
When GotoConf Amsterdam asked me to speak, I thought it’d be another machine learning or Progressive Web Apps talk. Instead the organisers asked me to cover CSS. An under-represented language in their “programming languages” track. Now, I’ve been a fan of CSS from the very beginning. I assumed that people in a hard-core development conference won’t be as excited. They’d have not looked at CSS in detail. Instead, my assumption was that it is more of a necessary annoyance to them. So I wrote a talk about what using CSS means and how we don’t use it to its strengths.
Here are the notes of my talk.
A boring fight
The other day I watched “Captain America: Civil War “again. And once again it bored me and I didn’t quite get the concept of it. The idea of super heroes forced to be responsible for their collateral damage is not new. Asking for control over them is not new either. “The Incredibles” did a great job with that.
I was more bored about the premise of all these cool super heroes fighting against each other. We know their powers. We know that they are deep down friends who saved each other’s lives on countless occasions. We know that their powers match. There is no violence, no real drive, no anger in these encounters. It feels like Marvel introduced too many cool characters and now tries to find a way to let people take sides. Sell more toys, create artificial drama.
Can these two groups:
“CSS is so easy, it isn’t even coding”
“CSS is so hard, we need to replace it with JS!”
please talk to each other?
A lot of the misconceptions of CSS is because developers don’t understand how it differs from programming. Instead, we fiddle with it and change things around. After breaking something, we conclude that it is not good enough and we need to replace it.
Often this is overshooting the mark. Much like using OpenGL for simple gradient creation we don’t need to bring out the big guns all the time. CSS has a few tricks up its sleeve that we can’t match with client-side scripting. And it has nothing to do with syntax or language features. It is about sharing responsibility.
Who is at fault and who should be tolerant?
CSS, much like HTML is fault tolerant. This can be confusing. What it means is that end users should not suffer from the mistakes of the developer. Products built with CSS still show up when the developer made a mistake. They don’t look perfect, but they work. When a CSS parser encounters a property it doesn’t understand – it skips it. When it encounters a value it can’t deal with or the property doesn’t support – it skips it. That way we stay backwards compatible.
A button that has a background colour and a gradient will show the colour on older environments. It also shows it in environments that don’t support gradients because of performance issues. Faster, more hi-fi and supporting environments will show a gradient.
You don’t need to know the environment and you don’t need to make that decision. The OS, the browser and the proxies involved make these decisions for you.
In other words:
CSS - You apply your styles and you hope it worked.
CSS means embracing the “squishiness” of the web, as Brad Frost put it. The web isn’t a fixed canvas you can set pixels on. A lot of things on it are beyond your control:
The browsers of your users
The resolution, pixel density and colour settings of their devices
Their connection reliability and speed
Their connection restrictiveness – resource blocking is a thing
Their font size and zoom needs
The availability of resources on their machines for your product (is the CPU already burning?)
The amount of text content and image sizes in your product – CMS anyone?
This can be daunting and often we want to control the environment our products run in – if only to keep our sanity. This means though that we block out a lot of potential users.
In this unknown environment we have to decide who takes on the job to deal with its performance problems:
CSS - It is the job of the browser to perform well, use GPU resources and skip functionality.
CSS is damn good at that and browser makers put a lot of effort into tweaking the interface performance.
CSS and its bumpy history
CSS had to grow up fast and didn’t get the support from browsers that it needed to be a reliable tool.
CSS was very limited at first and meant as a replacement for visual HTML and attributes. Begone all those font, bgcolor, align, center, HR and friends. Patchy browser support and very odd errors without debugging options didn’t help it. We knew things were wrong but we couldn’t do anything about it. We even couldn’t ask anyone as browser makers weren’t available for feedback.
When the iPhone came out CSS had its day in the limelight. The “HTML5 is the future” story needed a lot of extra functionality. With Apple calling the shots there and standardisation taking too long a lot was “Webkit only”. T
his meant prefixes in CSS and once again forking for different rendering engines. Browser makers innovated and showed dominance over others with prefixed functionality. As developers this meant repetition and having to pick a support plan for each of them. And of course one to support older, outdated browsers. These new browser wars around prefixes caused a lot of arguments and confusion.
And last but not least there was until recently no layout model in CSS. Instead we hacked using positioning and floating. Positioning, especially absolute positioning in pixels isn’t sensible on the web. People can resize the font and contents will overlap. Positioning with floating needs clearing elements.
It is not what you call a reliable base line or one that was simple to understand if you’re not “web native”
We needed to make CSS work regardless of browser support
Evergreen browsers are a thing – all browsers are on a constant upgrade path. We even learn from browser makers what’s coming down the line.
Browser tooling gives detailed insights into what CSS applies to what. We even get visual tools like animation editors and colour pickers.
CSS support across browsers is well documented: caniuse.com is an incredible resource. It not only shows which browser and which environment supports what. It also explains bugs in the implementations, offers links to the specs and the bug reports. It even has an API to embed this information into documentation and developer tools.
We have support channels and bug tracking for almost all browsers. Some even allow you to file a bug using Twitter. The teams of browser makers are active on social media and reachable.
Here are some amazing things CSS can do now and you should consider using.
Calculated CSS values
One thing that always seemed to be missing in CSS was a way to calculate values. The classic example is an absolutely positioned element that is 100% wide but needs padding. In the olden days we needed to do that by nesting another element and apply the padding to that one. For quite some time though we could use CSS calc() for that and apply a width of calc(100% – 1em).
Using the ::before and ::after pseudo selectors in CSS allows you to create content that is purely visual. This is a great way to make sure that things that are for cosmetic reasons don’t need an own, empty DIV, SPAN, B or I element. It is a way to keep everything visual maintained in the style sheet instead of scripts or the HTML document. You can pair this with drop shadows, gradients and other CSS features that create visuals.. An impressive showcase of that is “A Single DIV“. This web site shows dozens of visuals created from a single DIV element.
Animations and transitions
Media Queries make sense when you want to define experiences in detail. Instead, you can also use viewport units to size elements according to the available space. Viewport Width (vw) is a percentage of the full viewport width. So on a 480px wide screen 10vw is 10% or 48px. This differs from the % unit, which is the percentage of the parent element and not the viewport. Nested percentages will get smaller, vw will not. Viewport Height (vh) is a percentage of the full viewport height. You can also make yourself independent of orientation my using vmin and vmax. These either take the smaller or the larger of vw and vh. The only niggle in support of viewport units is that to date Edge doesn’t support vmin and vmax.
CSS Tricks has a great article on how powerful viewport units can be. From resolution independent embeds to viewport dependent typography you can use viewport units to create highly flexible interfaces.
Flexbox is a way to create layout of elements in CSS. In essence is it everything people who claimed layout tables were easier missed in CSS - and much more. You can align child elements of an element to be on the right, left, top or bottom. You can define them to fill up the available space, with each using either the same amount or more than the others. You can also define them to use the available space between each other or around each of them. It is as flexible as it says on the tin. If you want to have a visual editor to see what that means, Build With React has a great flexbox editor to play with.
There is also a game called Flexbox Froggy. It teaches the concepts in an enjoyable and accessible manner and is great for kids to start with CSS.
A great talk about Flexbox is the one Zoe Gillenwater gave at various events. What I like most about the talk is how Zoe shows how they used Flexbox in production. The examples are from booking.com and show fallbacks for browsers that don’t support it.
If Flexbox is the answer to layout elements in a row or a column, CSS Grid is taking it to the next level. Using it you can lay out elements in a defined grid in two dimensions, both rows and columns. Grid has been cooking for a while and now is finally supported across the board.
Grid can be daunting to look at as its flexibility means there are a lot of options to choose from. By far the simplest way to get started is Rachel Andrew’s “Grid by Example” resource. This one has copy+paste examples of grid layouts. Many of them come with fallbacks for unsupported browsers. Training videos explaining the ins and outs of them make it an amazing resource.
If you learn better with challenges, you can grasp CSS Grid by playing the CSS Grid Garden.
There are some “must see” talks about CSS grids online. The first one is “CSS Grid Layout“, again by Rachel Andrew.
There is no problem with mixing and matching Grid and Flexbox. It can and should use Flexbox in its cells. Together, these tools allow you to create flexible layouts. Layouts that allow for variable content and change to fit the available space. Web layouts.
CSS Custom properties (variables)
Another very welcome addition to CSS was Feature Queries. These work much like Media Queries. By using @supports you check if the current user agent supports a certain feature. You then define a block of CSS that only gets applied when there is feature support. This might feel odd as the fault tolerant nature of CSS should already take care of that. What it does though is give you much more granular control. It also allows you to define a fallback when there is no support for a certain feature using the “not” keyword.
The hierarchy of making CSS and JS work with another in this scenario the following:
Use CSS when you can – using the things you saw here
If you need to communicate with CSS, consider changing Custom Properties
If that’s not an option apply classes to parent elements using classList.
As a very last resort, you can alter the style directly
Whenever you change styles dynamically, remember that you are working against the browser. Every style change has consequences in reflow, rendering and painting. Paul Lewis and Das Surma maintain a handy guide called CSSTriggers. This one describes in detail which CSS changes result in what punishment to the browser.
Users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity
Our users deserve interfaces that are smooth, reliable and don’t kill their batteries. So, consider CSS a bit more. You can be lazy and build on the work of the community.
Inspiring and active CSS people to follow
When researching this talk I kept going back to resources written and maintained by fabulous people on the web. Here is a short list in no particular order of people you should follow if you want to be up to scratch with your CSS knowledge. I have to thank each of them. They’re making the web easier for all of us.
Ana Tudor (@anatudor) is a developer who creates ridiculously complex and beautiful animations in CSS. Her Codepen is one of the most frequented ones and what she does to the CSS engines is a great help for browser makers to test their performance
Brad Frost (@brad_frost) is the author of Atomic Design, a scalable way to use and re-use CSS in large projects
Rachel Nabors (@rachelnabors) is a comic artist and animation expert writing about web animations and merits of different technologies
Una Kravets (@una) is a developer specialising in CSS and its new features. She also is a podcaster and has her finger very much on the pulse of CSS and other visual technologies
Lea Verou (@leaverou) is the author of the excellent CSS secrets book, a researcher at MIT and invited expert by the CSS working group of the W3C. She is meticulous in her research and ruthless in her delivery of lots of great information in a short amount of time.
Sara Soueidan (@sarasoueidan) is a developer who is an expert on responsive designs and pragmatic approaches to using newest technologies.
I keep getting inspired by these people (amongs others) daily, and hope you will start to get the same experience.
I am now proud owner of a HoloLens. I am not officially trained up on it yet as a Microsoft Employee. But I wanted to share the first impressions of setting it up and using it.
These are my personal impressions and not an official stance by my company. I’m sharing my first excitement here. I hope can make some people understand what is happening here.
This is also just a user POV as I haven’t started developing for it yet, but this will happen soon – promised.
HoloLens is unique
First of all, it is important to understand that HoloLens is something pretty unique. Every time I mention it people start making comparisons to the Occulus or Vive, but those don’t work.
A high-powered, multi camera mobile on your head
HoloLens is a self-contained computer you wear on your head. You don’t need anything else. It is not a peripheral, there is no other computer or server necessary. This is important when considering the price. Many VR headsets are much cheaper, but they aren’t Mixed Reality and they need a hefty computer to run. It doesn’t even need an internet connection all the time. Just because you wear them on your head doesn’t mean you can compare these products on even ground.
You should plan coding for it like a mobile phone on your head in terms of CPU/GPU power. The specs are high, but the demand of the way it works are, too. If you build for HoloLens be conservative with the resources you need – you’ll make me happy. Waiting isn’t fun, even when it is a floating animation in your room.
Your natural movement is an event
HoloLens is a system that uses natural motion of your head and body to explore an augmented space. This means you don’t lose connection to the real world – you still see it through the device. What you get is a constant analysis of your surroundings and Holograms overlayed on it. You open apps and either use them floating before you or dock them to a wall to use later when you look at said wall. You distribute your work space in your living space – without needing to go to IKEA to buy furniture.
This means the way you move and where you look become events software can interact with. The “gaze” gesture, which is “looking at something” is akin to a hover with a mouse. The “air tap” gesture is a click or submit.
That way the relative small size of you viewport compared to Occulus or Vive is less relevant. You’re not stuck in it as your viewport follows your head movement. You’re not supposed to have a whole takeover. HoloLens is there to augment the world – not replace it.
Your whole body is now an event trigger. Instead of learning keyboard shortcuts, you learn gestures. Or you can use your voice.
Gestures vs. Voice Recognition
You can use your hands to select and interact with things. Or you can say “select” to interact and “next” to move on in menus. Voice recognition is always on and Cortana is just one “Hey Cortana” away. You can use it to open apps, search the web, research, all kind of things. It still feels odd to me to talk to my phone. I am on Android, maybe Siri is a better experience. It feels more natural to talk to a voice in a space of apps I distributed around my house.
HoloLens has a lot of speakers built in which allows you to hear sounds from all directions. This is pretty amazing when it comes to games like RoboRaid:
And even more so in Fragments:
When using the speakers, there is not much privacy though. It is pretty easy to hear what HoloLens says when you are close to someone wearing it.
If you want a keyboard, you can have one
If you enter a lot of text into web sites or something similar, you can also pair a bluetooth keyboard. Or clicker, or whatever. At first it annoyed me to enter my pretty secure passwords in a floating keyboard. But the more I got used to HoloLens interaction, the easier it became.
A whole new way of interaction
I’m not a big fan of VR because I am prone to get nauseous if the frame rate isn’t perfect. I am also getting car sick a lot, so it isn’t something to look forward to. I also feel confined by it – it fills me with dread missing out on things around me whilst being in a virtual space. I don’t like blindfolds and earplugs either.
The only discomfort I felt from HoloLens is having something weighing close to a kilogram on your head. But you get used to it. At the beginning you will also feel your fingers cramp up during air tapping and your shoulders hurt. This means you are doing it wrong. The more natural you move, the easier it is for HoloLens to understand you. An air tap doesn’t need full movement. Consider lifting your finger and pointing at stuff. Just like interrupting a meeting.
An outstanding onboarding experience
What made me go “wow” was the way you set up and start working with the HoloLens. The team did an incredible job there. The same way Apple did a great job getting people used to using a touch device back when the iPhone came out. Setting up a HoloLens is an experience of discovery.
You put on the device and a friendly “hello” appears with Cortana’s voice telling you what to do. You get to set up the device to your needs by calibrating it to your eyes. Cortana tells you step by step how to use the gestures you need to find your way around. Each step is full of friendly “well done” messages. When you get stuck, the system tells you flat out not to worry and come back to it later. It is an enjoyable learning experience.
How I use it
Right now, I have my kitchen cupboards as my work benches. Edge is on one of them and next to it is my task list of the day. I have a few games on the other side of the room. When it comes to Holograms, there is a cat on our dog’s bowl and a Unicorn above the bed to give us nice dreams. Because we can.
Skype is pretty amazing on HoloLens:
Some niggles I have
It is important to remember a few things about the HoloLens:
It isn’t a consumer device but for now a B2B tool. On the one side there is the high price. And there is a focus on working with it rather than playing games.
It is not an outside device. HoloLens scans your environment and turns it into meshes. After it created the meshes it stores them in “spaces” avoiding the need to keep scanning. Outside this means a constant re-evaluating of the space. This is expensive and not worth-while. So there is no danger of a re-emergence of the annoying Google Glass people in the street. It stilll is disconcerning to look at someone not knowing if they film you or not.
I agree with a lot of other people that there should be a way to have several user accounts with stored calibration info on a single HoloLens. Whilst you can share experiences with other HoloLens users, it would be great to hand it over without recalibration and giving someone else access to my Windows account.
There should be a way to wipe all the Holograms in a space with a single command. When you let other people play with your device you end up with lots of tigers, spacemen and all kind of other things in your space that you need to delete by hand.
Whilst it is easy to shoot video and take pictures of your experience, the sharing experience is very basic. You can store it to OneDrive or Facebook. No option to mail it or to add Twitter. That said, Skype helps with that.
This is truly some next level experience
I am sure that there are great things to come in the VR/AR/MR space. Many experiences might be much more detailed and Hi-Fi. Yet, I am blown away by the usefulness of this device. I see partners and companies already use it to plan architectural projects. I see how people repair devices in the field with Skype instructions from the office. I get flashbacks to Star Trek’s Holodeck – something I loved as a teen.
It is pretty damn compelling to be able to use your physical space as a digital canvas. You don’t have to leave your flat. And you don’t run the danger of bumping into things while you are off into cyberspace. It is augmentation as it should be. In a few years I will probably chuckle at this post when my cyber contacts and ear piece do the same thing for me. But for now, I am happy I had the chance to try this out.
Posted in General | Comments Off on First impressions of my HoloLens