💾 Archived View for station.martinrue.com › kakafega › 8fc5af98798f4e979ff0224d77ace864 captured on 2024-03-21 at 17:41:14. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-02-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Is it me or there should be a button to go back to the main page in every page? I find myself having to hit previous page quite a lot because some pages don't have a "go back to main page"
2 years ago
@freezr sent u an email via doom2midi@gmail.com · 2 years ago
@superfxchip & @moddedbear I'd like to extend the invite also for you, this is my email:
freeze@mailbox.org
write me back so I can send the draft to you as well! 😁 · 2 years ago
@kakafega & @krixano I'd like to convert this conversation into my next gemlog entry! :D
However before to publish the log, I would like to submit the draft to both of you so you can polish what you wrote here.
Please write me at freezr@mailbox.org so I can reach you out when the draft is ready!
Thanks in advance,
F. · 2 years ago
Furthermore, some functionality would be impossible to dupliate in the capsule. The capsule has no way of knowing the history of the browser, so "Go back" links don't actually make sense.
Btw, have you ever thought about not using TUI clients? :P
[2/2] · 2 years ago
If you browse with Lagrange and you are scrolling the page with the wheel is pretty useful having a link close to your mouse cursor rather than moving the left-top-corner of the window.
But now you are trying to dictate what the user wants when what the user wants already informed their choice in a client in the first place. That's why these navigational tools are the job of the client, and not the capsule; the user chose the client *because* of how the navigation in it works, or for whatever other reason. If there is a flaw in the client, then the client itself changes, or the user changes the client.
[1/2] · 2 years ago
@krixano
For instance, I use different clients on different platforms but I have hard time to memorize each client commands. Most of my articles are my (shared) online documentation and I am pretty happy that I can browse my content without necessary remember each clients' features; by the other hand I lose quickly interest on content that rely strictly on the client UI to browse, because it is annoying wandering around the UI looking for the proper commands and it is especially annoying on TUI clients (IMHO).
🤷 · 2 years ago
@krixano If you land on article from Antenna and you want go the upper lever from Lagrange Android it is required (by default) two taps, but if you have the link on the bottom of the page you need just one!
However If you want through the tab history having the function in the client is necessary whether is TUI, GUI or mobile.
[2/3]
The numeration changed... ^^" · 2 years ago
@krixano
We are into "UI vs UX" field and mostly depends by your "habits vs client", if you browse from a TUI client with both hands on the keyboard you might feel unnecessary a "go up" link anywhere in the page.
If you browse with Lagrange and you are scrolling the page with the wheel is pretty useful having a link close to your mouse cursor rather than moving the left-top-corner of the window.
[1/2] · 2 years ago
The final thing I wanted to say was to reiterate something that I mentioned previously, which is that the trade-off for tailoring your client around browsers that don't have a back or goto root button is much greater than I think people might first think. We'd essentially be duplicating the web by requiring that everyone have navigation "boxes" on every page. This is a lot of duplication that will inevitably lead to templating engines. We have an opportunity for us to enact change, to do things better than they were done before, and to not do everything half-way. This requires a leap. This requires people willing to do things differently. This requires setting an example. · 2 years ago
When I draft my content I want to be one that is controlling the flow of the reading, you can use your client as you like but you can also follow the path I shaped for you.
[3/3] This is where I feel like we are discussing different things. Shaping content has barely any effect on the standard navigational tools that I was talking about, which are primarily inter-capsule navigation. A back button is an essential part of a client, and so users should use that, and content creators should not be creating a secondary thing to replace it since it undermines the acceptance of the client functionality and creates confusion, and is really just unnecessary. · 2 years ago
@freezr And you can't even guarantee that every client is going to have or not have certain functionality. But back to the living standard territory - the majority of clients would offer a certain functionality (like the back button, which is nowhere in the spec), and capsules would be very reasonable to tailor their interfaces to that widely-accepted functionality, especially when it comes to something as simple as a back button, that is pretty much in every single client.
[2/3] · 2 years ago
@feezr Well, then the logical conclusion is to account for someone not having a gemini browser, because you can't rely on every gemini browser supporting txt files, or markdown files, or quotes, or links in general, or URLs, or certificates, etc. Except... we actually have a standard for this very reason - so that capsule creators have a reasonable expectation for clients.
However, now we get into navigation and living standard territory. Tailoring your content to every little missing feature of every client is a waste of time, not good for the users who don't need that functionality duplicated, and takes away all motivation for client designers to change for the better. · 2 years ago
@krixano this continues the content below ⬇️
When I draft my content I want to be one that is controlling the flow of the reading, you can use your client as you like but you can also follow the path I shaped for you.
In this case it doesn't matter if your client can or cannot do stuff for you, the content is designed to carry you by hand the whole time.
Adding a bunch of bytes to make your content fully browsable, agnostically respect the client, is a reasonable trade-off for me...
🤔 · 2 years ago
@krixano I don't disagree with you but not all clients offer the same tools and I do not want rely on them for drafting my content.
Doing so you risk to shape your content upon your favorite client which is going to hit, unavoidably, bad another client paradigm.
(follow ⬆️) · 2 years ago
@freezr The point of solving something in the client is that navigation of this sort is a global thing. It's not page-specific or site-specific. Why should every single page to ever exist have a "Go to root" link when clients can (and do) have this functionality? It's a waste of bytes and everyones time to add this, and it's literally one of the core functionalities of a browser to be able to browse/navigate. File Explorers have had "Go up" and "Go to root" for a very very long time for a reason, and it'd be odd if gemini browsers didnt have this. Not only that, solving these things in the clients is easier than the 400,000 pages that are on gemini. · 2 years ago
I felt it is something missing, mainly because the navigation menu is an alien concept in the gemini-space.
And despite the simplicity of Gemini I saw horrors especially when capsules are made off HTML/markdown... 🤦♂️
However I do not believe the client must solve it, I think this depends on how you design your page. You must always allow the reader to escape your content, introducing break points, for me is usually the index of the current folder.
Always at the bottom of the page but including a break point also at beginning is useful, allowing the user to follow the flow rather than find a further command to exit. 🤔 · 2 years ago
@moddedbear What would be even better imo is if browsers just had a root button/command that takes you to the root. As described in the posts I linked, having to create a navigation menu for every single page is a lot for someone maintaining a capsule and is part of the reason templating engines exist. Yet, this whole situation could be solved by just one button/command in clients without having to change a ton of capsules. And of course, this "root" button wouldn't be dependent on where you came from, because it can just change the path in the URL to "/" · 2 years ago
Yeah I feel the same way. How people use client navigation varies depending on their browser, device, habits, and how they got to the current page. One root link I think is good enough to satisfy most cases and it's not that much clutter, especially if you place it at the bottom of the page. · 2 years ago
@kakafega if you right click on the page in lagrange, you have the option to "Go to root". Also, if you click the main top page header that indicates what site you're on in the client, it also leads you back to the root page. Maybe this depends client to client, i'm sure, though i know the Geminaut browser also offers a similar functionality.
Either way, the spec was designed to be able to better utilize using "forward" and "back" to go between previous and current visited pages as opposed to taking space on a page for that kinda thing. · 2 years ago
@krixano that's a very good point, it would be a matter of just having a "root" button and my "issue" would be fixed. All the other ideas you linked seem really nice as well. Gemini has the potential! · 2 years ago
I personally don't mind that there's no link to go to main page, because I feel like more often than not it clutters the page. The back button is designed to be used. There's actually an interesting series of articles about client navigation design that I feel like more client authors should experiment with:
gemini://mozz.us/journal/2021-01-01.gmi
gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/users/solderpunk/gemlog/gemini-client-navigation.gmi · 2 years ago