More from Code Of Honor
So many folks have reached out to me to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the launch of Guild Wars on April 28, 2005, that it encouraged me to write this little bitty. I was heartened to see an article about Guild Wars in GameRant, which talked about the server infrastructure of the game, and most […] The post Twenty Years of Guild Wars appeared first on Code Of Honor.
I feel fortunate to have been part of Blizzard Entertainment when it started, now over thirty years ago. I got to work with amazing people; make games players loved; and learn a lot about design, programming, and business along the way. Some of those lessons were hard-earned, as my blog articles and the book describe. […] The post Credit where credit is due appeared first on Code Of Honor.
Developing games is a full-time occupation, so it is no surprise that I’ve had less time for blogging as I’ve started creating a new game. After a two-year stint helping other folks publish their games I’m back to coding and game design full-time and having a wonderful time. But for those of you who have […] The post Stay Awhile and Listen appeared first on Code Of Honor.
Anyone who runs a web site knows that they’re constantly under attack. You only have to look at your log files to know that hackers running site-scanners are constantly hitting your servers looking for unpatched vulnerabilities to exploit. One of the servers I wrote for Guild Wars 1 — named AcctHttpSrv — was designed to […] The post Uh-oh: was the company site hacked? appeared first on Code Of Honor.
Game-unit path-finding is something that most players never notice until it doesn’t work quite right, and then that minor issue becomes a rage-inducing, end-of-the-world problem. During the development of StarCraft there were times when path-finding just didn’t work at all. As the development of StarCraft dragged on it seemed like it would never be done: […] The post The StarCraft path-finding hack appeared first on Code Of Honor.
More in programming
Google told K-12 schools they could turn off AI, but only if they gave up search too. That isn’t integration. It’s holding education for ransom.
Once a year at my church, I usually give one sermon. I was asked to tie the theme to a young adult retreat we had taken to the Sunshine Coast. My first experience giving a sermon was many years ago at my old home church in El Monte, California. It was a Vietnamese-American church, but…
Practical tools for design engineers to explore possible futures through speculative design
As with my last post on AI, let me open with a statement: Just because most people hold AI a certain way, doesn’t mean that we always must, either now or in the future. As I noted in that piece, and my shades of gray post, I am well aware — and agree with — … Continue reading Must we always use LLMs this way? →
The CSS Working Group resolved to use cursor: pointer for buttons and other clickable form controls in the new appearance: base styles. That happened on October 21, but I posted about it yesterday and, uh, people have feelings about cursors. I wrote about buttons and cursors back in 2022, when a post titled "Buttons shouldn't have a hand cursor" was making the rounds. I admitted I didn't have a strong opinion either way, then argued that not using the hand cursor had become the new anti-pattern anyway. The web isn't an operating system, and people expect clickable things to show a hand. The issue is Cursors For Base Appearance in CSS Forms Level 1. The group adopted the rules from this comment, and the part that's triggering half the Web is: select, option, input[type=checkbox], input[type=radio], button, input[type=button], input[type=submit], input[type=reset], input[type=color], input[type=image], ::file-selector-button { cursor: pointer; } It seems like we have a tabs vs. spaces sort of debate. Again. Nicole Sullivan pulled cursor data from a bunch of design systems and, in September, 27 of the 33 systems that set a cursor used pointer. After she added more systems, it was closer to a 50/50 split. Elika Etemad made the usability case in the meeting. Per the minutes, she said the hand "makes it clear, as soon as you're hovering an interactive control, you're supposed to click on it," and called it a "usability benefit even if not historically done on some platforms." "But the hand means it's a link" Haz had an interesting reaction: The debate is over, and evil has won. His point is that he can't tell whether ⌘-clicking something will open it in a new window anymore. He feels more confident clicking a button when he knows it won't change the URL, like when it just opens a popover or a panel. He's not wrong about that.* I replied that I've been on team evil since 2022 (albeit without a strong opinion, just following what users seem to expect). Touch screens don't have a cursor at all, and on desktop, browsers show a link's URL in the corner when you hover it. That's some type of hint, at least. Haz pushed back that he'd have to watch the bottom-left corner with his peripheral vision, which is fair. He also said he never cared which cursor buttons got, he just wanted links to have their own. I can appreciate that. "But desktop apps don't do it!" Jacob Paris liked the standard cursor on buttons because it makes web apps feel more like desktop apps than websites. My opinion hasn't changed, though. People have already learned that a hand cursor means clickable on the Web. It's by no means mandatory, but it's familiar and satisfying, so it stuck. Either way, nothing changes today. The resolution only covers appearance: base, which browsers haven't shipped yet. Buttons and selects still use appearance: auto, and their cursor is still default. If your CSS reset, design system, or web components already set cursor: pointer on buttons, keep it. When appearance: base ships, controls that opt in will get the same cursors by default. But remember, these are only defaults! You can still add whatever cursor you want to whatever element you want. Nobody's gonna stop you. In 2022, I said I'd keep changing the cursor on buttons until there's a good reason to stop. In 2026, I still haven't found one…and neither has the CSS Working Group. *Thinking about this more, if 50% of design systems opted to add cursor: pointer to buttons already, isn't this already a moot argument? **In general, I think the Web should be more personal and expressive so who even cares about a default? This is especially true for personal and fun sites. Just don't go too crazy, especially when it affects accessibility and the overall user experience.