But we hear you on the feedback - we will roll this back while we keep pushing on the root performance causes.
[update - this change has been reverted and the previous behaviour is back]
A lot of this can be cached but it's easy to see why moving from one repo to another will invalidate most or all permission checks and feature flag checks.
In case they are truly chasing Azure DevOps level UX, I would recommend they implement an HTML editor for issues that, depending on whether the user has dark mode or light mode enabled, saves some CSS of the respective mode and makes it unreadable if read within the other mode.
> any link to an issue form an issue stared to open in a popup overlay instead of navigating to it
When I use GitHub now, I see that when I hover over a link to an issue, it provides a hover popup after a fraction of a second. I can still click the original link to navigate to the issue, or move my mouse and the popup goes away.
Is the complaint that these hover popups exist at all? Or is something else happening to certain people that they're complaining about? There isn't a link to an example page or anything. I'm just baffled here.
The page i wanted to go to pops up in a small overlay on the right hand side. The body text and content that I wanted to view is in a new, weird location, with the old page still behind it in the normal spot. It’s very unintuitive.
Thankfully either the behavior has reverted or I’m no longer in the A/B test. I can’t get the popup to happen anymore for me. (edit, nvm, behavior varies depending on repo or something? it acts completely differently on different pages, sometimes links are normal and sometimes they open in a popup. extremely annoying)
Just last night I was helping my GF set up an ad for her job on LinkedIn. The UX was terrible. Like awful and basic things like save and exit were completely broken. Meanwhile LinkedIn makes what percentage of their revenue through ads? Same with google ads. It’s like these products that are in a way some of the most valuable products in the planet, are given a junior web dev and a “UX designer” who really doesn’t know anything about UX.
Seriously tho, why isn't this something that a browser can do? Why can't I just split a tab and say all links from the left tab open in the right? Why not be able to scroll through history as a list of such panes like a smalltalk browser or file explorer on a mac? Maybe even a history tree, able to be forked with a click or two. Tree-style tabs are a baby step toward that, but I'm not seeing much interest out there in actually learning how to run.
right click a link, open in split view
Just for the record.
with the split view it not only becomes very easy, but the split tabs also keep their position among all the other tabs, so i can keep the view permanently without cluttering up my list of windows. currently i have 5 split views in active use. that number is likely to grow...
It's way easier to nail the UX when you're still in the dozens-of-employees stage of growth and offer like five features in total.
This, but for online shops, especially clothing. Horrendously buggy, laggy, with broken navigation (especially when navigating back), filters that don't work on > 95% of online stores. Why they wouldn't fix their primary (or at the very least highest margin) income stream is beyond me, but I've had to abandon so many shopping carts just because the checkout flow is literally broken.
What you pay attention to grows. And company's pay attention to those things that move the needle on revenue. For many successful platforms UX doesn't move the needle much anymore (if it ever did). LinkedIn has effectively won their space and a clunky UI isn't going to show up in the numbers.
LinkedIn might have amazing designers on staff, but if leadership isn't prioritizing updates and fixes it won't happen. And leadership won't prioritize it until the problem shows up in the numbers.
If you read the old Win32 interface design studies, and Raymond Chen's "Old New Thing, The: Practical Development Throughout the Evolution of Windows" you realize what people click isn't always what they want.
And old UX was ensuring that it was build in a way that what the user clicked was what they wanted.
Now? Since the MBAs came in the UX is another hostile piece of software, trying to trigger you into spending money.
I visit a site/launch the app I always use with the intent of getting something done quickly, and I find that since the last time I used it someone's rearranged the deck chairs and hidden or removed the functionality I need. Something that should take a minute or two suddenly becomes rage-inducing and eats an entire day.
The most depressing email to receive is "Good news! We've improved our website ..."
I wonder how much of Apples design was basically ‘if you confuse Steve Jobs you’re fired.’ And this acted as a necessary governing force to counteract the need to impress peers.
So UX engineers will unleash the latest fad (see Apple's glass UI, or Material Design, variations of flat gray design, etc...), PMs will insist in dumbing down UIs, engineers will push whatever micro-service architecture because it's "cool" or push for rewrites in Rust / Typescript. At the same time, it's very rare for companies to have a single person (or restricted group of people) with a global view on what the product line is trying to achieve long-term.
Computers are data processing machines with input and output. People today think they are vehicles to show design skill, and that’s not what they are. Focusing on design instead of utility is how you ruin any UI/UX anywhere.
Sites like GitHub do not exist for the designer. Sites like GitHub exist for software developers. Software developers should be calling the shots on that site, not designers.
Ralphlauren.com should be designed by designers. Dieterrams.com should be designed by designers. Etc.
Sites for designers should be designed by people who want to show off their designs.
Sites for data entry and manipulation should be designed for those who use that information. Creatives should stay away from sites like GitHub.
You have to go back to when it was called HIC (Human–computer interaction) to find people who weren't completely brain-dead or ad-pilled when it came to design, did actual work and research trying to make better designs, and thus were at least somewhat respected.
I realized it has morphed into completely unusable tool with so many features that i don't even know what to do inside it anymore.
Same pattern I saw in many other tools and product. As time passes software becomes more and more complex, then a new one comes which simplifies something and then it also morphs into some enterprise behemoth
Yes, the (senior) product and design people are part of the problem too.
We need to build simpler software that works.
-Does it drive more people to the app -Does it maximize time spent on the site -etc
Your idea of perfect is very different than the one LinkedIn is using
I would have thought it'd be the opposite.
It implies have hundreds of teams and UI / UX often is "scaled" in weird ways where everyone does their own thing and becomes a giant mess.
Everything is "correct" when you slice it enough. So from team A's perspective this might be a gain. When you are a part of a team you only see and own this part. That's your KPI.
Unless there's real and working governance (often very very hard) then it's not happening. To get that governance you need company direction and company buy-in that stops managers trying to push new features fast to infinity.
Google released an AI music studio and their primary UI is literally an AI chat window. I absolutely hate UIs like that.
At this point, it will stay broken because the amount of people complaining are not paying but are a tiny amount of people that will end up continuing to live with it.
So it won't be fixed.
no reaction
Also: having trouble getting this specific link to load -- just getting the unicorn error over and over.
I think web browsers should revisit how they handle links with target=_blank/_top, and show different cursers when hovering and let users customize the default behavior.
All(?) browser open links in a new tab when middle-clicked?
- I want to review surrounding code and get context for a line level change. Can't do it without clicking multiple expanders and even that has a limit of 2 or 3. I also can't comment on surrounding unchanged code which is sometimes extremely relevant, like "copy this pattern"
- I want to see all the unaddressed issues. Ones that are not marked as resolved and not replied to, however you slice it, the issue filters simply don't work
- I don't want the PR author to be able to resolve issues without me getting indicated to verify them. The workaround is them commenting "fixed" on every issue. Make the button say "mark as resolved" and "verify resolved"
- Bonus: if you've got more than 40 comments on a PR, good luck finding some random subset of them. They're just unavailable and the UI unapologetically says "eh can't do it". Yeah small PRs but it happens.
Popup or inline i don't really care, the baseline workflow is completely uninformed.
I get this issue preview on Projects, although I don't like it there either, but as a hook on any issue link is just terrible UX, zero benefits IMHO.
I reported a bug last year about being unable to quote code blocks. It's quite a basic yet fundamental feature, right? They acknowledged the bug and moved on. To this day, quoting a block of code is still broken [1].
They simply don't care. I suppose their attention is focused on other subjects...
Anyway, I kind of accepted the "enshitification" of things I used to like. Fortunately, in this case, we can still hack our way around using custom userscripts [2].
[1] https://imgur.com/a/github-bug-cant-quote-blocks-of-code-Z9O...
[2] https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/192665#discuss...
*the markdown enabler needs updating last I checked
Please consider a lofi version for people that want to select text without navigating to a different page.
As always in product the user's frustration is real and important but their ideas for a fix are almost never the best choice for the product, the company, or most users.
Big assumption you're making there.
Sorry, UI/UX people, but if you were proceeding towards some finely crafted experience, you’d have honed in on it by now. You would have a set of rules that could be followed to present information in both a pleasing way and a useful way simultaneously and everyone would know how things work because everyone followed the same rules. None of that has happened. You are just changing things to change them.
Personally, I don't like it much. It sounds like leakage from AzDO design. Maybe a option to turn it off would be the best way out.
Disclaimer: I work for msft, although I've no connection to github, ado or any other such tool.
A/B testing can’t measure preference, only interaction.