lucabenazzi

It's never been a thing, to be honest. They sell great hardware, and that's it.

I hope this is going to be the occasion for them to make the product better. Lots of paying customers are fed up, and I've just cancelled my Premium subscription. I am not going to upgrade again until they publish a wishlist website where customers can submit ideas, vote for them, and follow progress, with official updates from the Evernote team. I really like the way Webflow implemented it. As a paying customer, I am tired of having to rely on feature request forms and not even knowing if my requests are going to be taken into consideration. People have been asking for certain features to be implemented for years, with no avail. Not to mention the fact that the Android app is full of bugs and keeps crushing, and we are now more than a year away from the announcement of the new release. Instead of releasing new features (some of which are far away from the main product proposition and therefore of dubious utility), I'd rather appreciate if they could focus on fixing bugs on their existing software first.

Konsoolo is right, this is the most stupid solution they could possibly come with. Every time I enter a website, I see the bloody useless cookie banner. Those who designed this law have no idea how people behave on the internet. Nobody is going to read a cookie policy on every single website they enter, people want to get to the content they are looking for as quickly as possible. Privacy controls should be available at a browser level, so that 1) you don't force me to accept/refuse each time, disrupting the user experience 2) I am not going to lose all settings if someone from customer support suggests to delete cookies 3) I only set my preferences once, instead of having to decide a million times. The outcome of this stupid regulation is that website owner can still find a million ways to trick users with all sorts of dark patterns and subtle manipulation of language, and users have no way to defend their privacy unless they are willing to spend time understanding the working of this on each website they visit.

Some very good points here, I haven't been using Stack in a while and I can hardly believe they could come up with something like that! What a nightmare...! I can't fully agree with the rant about scroll bars: so easy to reveal them by just scrolling (easier than a mouse click), but a lot better in terms of aesthetic. Of course a compromise, but an acceptable one. I would rather prefer scrollbars on desktop to be larger, because they are not visible most of the times anyway, so why make them such small targets that are difficult to click on? The author seems to be critical towards flat design, what are the arguments around that? The emotional impact of design is not something that can be disregarded that easily, it's legit to expect a modern UI to be efficient and slick at the same time. Aesthetic is paramount, for the same reasons why typography matters. Users nowadays expect to deal with a clean, lightweight UI, rather than with one that looks like it was designed in the Pleistocene.

I've posted this article because it highlights an obvious fact: the cookie law has dramatically worsened the user experience. As much as I am against dark patterns, punishing companies or providers for implementing them is just pointless. The GDPR rules have been designed by incompetents bureaucrats, mostly lawyers who know nothing about design. The result is a mess. The cookie consent banner per se is worst than a dark pattern. Privacy should be controlled at a browser settings level, and it's incomprehensible to me how they could come up with the idea of doing it at a website-per-website level. Pure incompetence.

Problem is, technology that is not widely used/distributed/supported is not reliable for archiving purposes. The idea is in principle good. I've just learned that there's an open format called WARP that was explicitly created for web archiving purposes, any relationship with what you are describing?

Great job! I suggest that you go deeper into how the annotation feature works in the add-on description, as that could be potentially useful. My main issue with this solution is whether this file format is going to be reliable in the future. As with MHTML that was mentioned in another comment, formats that are not widely used may one day not be supported the same way they are today. Not sure how you've achieved this as clearly HTML cannot hold media file by itself (unless there's something I am not aware of), so it must do something at a file system level, so I wonder is it going to still work in future versions of the operative system?