In those situations biz > user by definition and the developers end up having to cater to the needs of the middle managment of their customers rather than the needs of the actual users. The price of not doing this is failing to win the contract. Users then get locked in to whatever crap you have time to provide for them while you're really busy implementing new features that middle managment like.
You essentially only need a nice looking login screen and some sort of reporting and the rest.....doesn't matter much.
I am being a bit cynical but it does pay as an engineer to know if that's fundamentally the kind of company you're in.
An online retailer, for example, is hypersensitive to its users and I know of at least one that has different versions of its website for different countries because they know that Germans like X and Americans like Y - small changes make a huge difference to sales.
Other companies have no sensitivity to the usability of their products because the people who buy their products are never the users.
We implemented it in ES6 as part of a uni project if anyone's interested: https://github.com/gurgunday/onedollar-unistroke-es6
[0] - https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/narrowing.htm...
- CERN started planning its computing grid before AWS was launched.
- It's pretty complicated (politics, mission, vision) for CERN to use external proprietary software/hardware for its main functions (they have even started to MS Office like products.)
- [cost] CERN is quite different than a small team researchers doing few years research. the scale is enormous and very long lived, like for decades continue
- and more...
HPC and scientific computing aside, I would have loved to be able to use AWS when I worked there, internal infra for running web apps and services wasn't nearly good & reliable, neither had a wide catalog of services offered.
I hope this project stays active and the framework keeps a low overhead: I've spent some time ripping out chakra-ui from my sites due to its complexity making it hard to diagnose styling bugs between styled-system, emotion, etc. Mix that with a monorepo of UX components where packages depend on each other, and them being prebuilt. I could never find out why certain style rules wouldn't apply.
It looks like this project has an interesting thing: style-dictionary (https://github.com/cloudscape-design/components/tree/7433543...)
I'd be interested in reading a dev blog post on the architectural decisions (and lessons learned). Is there any decisions from other major UI frameworks that were trying to be avoided?
One more thing I've never seen before in a framework's documentation: Patterns (very practical and case-specific examples), https://cloudscape.design/patterns/patterns/overview/
Good job to the AWS team on this, will be studying it!
I really appreciate this! btw some DS have that too
https://ant.design/docs/spec/overview
https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/notification-pattern...
More seriously, at my old company they just never got removed. So it wasn’t really about control. You just forgot about the ones that didn’t matter after awhile.
If that sounds horrible, that’s probably the correct reaction. But it’s also common.
Namespacing helps too. It’s easier to forget a bunch of flags when they all start with foofeature-.
Ideally you have metrics for all flags and their values, so you can easily tell if one becomes redundant and safe to remove entirely after a while.
I've also seen making it a requirement to remove a flag after N days, the feature is completely rolled out.