Instead of having this confusing maze of lambdas, regexes, and strings, we could, in theory, introduce a single entry point of configuration for Sprockets to use, and in that file declare all assets we wanted to compile. Well, that’s exactly what the manifest.js file is.

I guess in short you could say that I don’t like this interface very much.

In object-oriented programming, information hiding (by way of nesting of types) reduces software development risk by shifting the code's dependency on an uncertain implementation (design decision) onto a well-defined interface. Clients of the interface perform operations purely through it so if the implementation changes, the clients do not have to change.

Programming to interfaces is at the core of flexible structure.

The more important point comes from a program design perspective. Here, "programming to an interface" means focusing your design on what the code is doing, not how it does it. This is a vital distinction that pushes your design towards correctness and flexibility.

My understanding of "programming to an interface" is different than what the question or the other answers suggest. Which is not to say that my understanding is correct, or that the things in the other answers aren't good ideas, just that they're not what I think of when I hear that term.

Programming to an interface means that when you are presented with some programming interface (be it a class library, a set of functions, a network protocol or anything else) that you keep to using only things guaranteed by the interface. You may have knowledge about the underlying implementation (you may have written it), but you should not ever use that knowledge.

If the program was important enough, Microsoft might actually go ahead and add some hack to their implementation so the the program would continue to work, but the cost of that is increased complexity (with all the ensuing problems) of the Windows code. It also makes life extra-hard for the Wine people, because they try to implement the WinAPI as well, but they can only refer to the documentation for how to do this, which leads to many programs not working as they should because they (accidentally or intentionally) rely on some implementation detail.

Abstract myself from the how it does and get focus on what to do.

Say you have software to keep track of your grocery list. In the 80's, this software would work against a command line and some flat files on floppy disk. Then you got a UI. Then you maybe put the list in the database. Later on it maybe moved to the cloud or mobile phones or facebook integration. If you designed your code specifically around the implementation (floppy disks and command lines) you would be ill-prepared for changes. If you designed your code around the interface (manipulating a grocery list) then the implementation is free to change.

It's more like providing an Employee object rather than the set of linked tables you use to store an Employee record. Or providing an interface to iterate through songs, and not caring if those songs are shuffled, or on a CD, or streaming from the internet. They're just a sequence of songs.

This assumes that the module has been given a well-defined, stable description (the interface in the sense of information hiding).

Source Code is a UX to interface with the raw machine.

I can't add special props and keywords to every single component I have and will ever create for this to work.

Explicitly exposing any attributes that might get overridden by a parent seems impractical to me.

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

Rule of Silence: When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing.

Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.

multiple selections, keyboard layout agnostic, SOV (subject–object–verb) constructs and simple interaction with external programs

The gem provides a command line utility for checking passwords.

This is one possible path to take in that you simply reject the registration and ask the user to create another password. Per NIST's guidance though, do explain why the password has been rejected:

TUI

Avoiding complicated outlining or mind-mapping software saves a bunch of mouse clicks or dreaming up complicated visualizations (it helps if you are a linear thinker).

Might be a little too low-level (even with GUIs) for some teams of users. GPG and Git both require some setup and experience in these tools, or the willingness to learn. Porting a GPG key from machine to machine is not trivial.

    bar: {        (s: string): number;        (n: number): string;    }

(name: string): string

Unfortunately, numerous widely-used tagless-final interfaces (like Sync, Async, LiftIO, Concurrent, Effect, and ConcurrentEffect) encourage you to code to an implementation.

Interface in java

with either hand (one pen is positioned for each hand)

giving the human the minute-by-minute services of a digital computer equipped with computer-driven cathode-ray-tube display

interfaced in many different ways

One consequence of thisposition is a more radical understanding of the sense in whichmateriality is discursive (i.e., material phenomena are inseparable from theapparatuses of bodily production: matteremerges out of and includes as part of itsbeing the ongoing reconfiguring of boundaries), just as discursive practices arealways already material (i.e., they are ongoing material (re)configurings of theworld) (2003: 822).Brought back into the world oftechnology design, this intimate co-constitution ofconfigured materialities with configuring agencies clearly implies a very differentunderstanding of the ‘human-machine interface’.

Raccomandazione 3.6g - Definire un modello di governance del dato e progettare automatismi organizzativi e tecnologici

la estructura ontológica del diseño está compuesta de las interrelaciones entre la herramienta, el usuario y la tarea o propósito, todos reunidos por la interfaz.

<table style="width:100%"> <tbody><tr> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Neither Apple nor Microsoft really captured the essence of what made the Smalltalk system powerful. They used it as a model to make computers more accessible, but they left out the aspect of letting people bend the system to their will, to customize it to be just what they want. Their systems were really an object-oriented facade over a traditional, non-object-oriented system. They lacked a consistent metaphore of everything being an object. The web has been even more stultifying in this regard (I mean the web interface), though Firefox has helped some, so I hear, with the concept of browser extensions.

Jessica Helfand in her essay The Dematerialism of Screen Space (2001) critiques the phenomenon of design practise being led by developments in software engineering. She argues that designers should take the initiative: “design must submit to a series of commands and regulations as rigourous as those that once defined Swiss typography. Aesthetic innovation, if it indeed exists at all, occurs within ridiculously preordained parameters: a new plug-in, a modified code, the capacity to make picture and words ‘flash’ with a mouse in a non-sensical little dance. We are all little filmmakers, directing on a pathetically small screen – yet broadcasting to a potentially infinite audience. This in itself is conflicting (not to mention corrupting), but more importantly, what are we making? What are we inventing? What are we saying that has not been said before?” Helfand here is referring to the web, but her argument applies equally well to designing tablet publications. Designers of book and magazine apps should be asking themselves those last three questions. Since tablet publishing conventions are in the process of being formed (like child invention), we have a unique opportunity right now to influence their direction.

Some key themes arise from the two NNG reports on iPad usability: App designers should ensure perceived affordances / discoverability There is a lack of consistency between apps, lots of ‘wacky’ interaction methods. Designers should draw upon existing conventions (either OS or web) or users won’t know what to do. These are practical interaction design observations, but from a particular perspective, that of perceptual psychology. These conclusions are arrived at through a linear, rather than lateral process. By giving weight to building upon existing convention, because they are familiar to the user, there is a danger that genuinely new ideas (and the kind of ambition called for by Victor Bret) within tablet design will be suppressed. Kay’s vision of the Dynabook came from lateral thinking, and thinking about how children learn. Shouldn’t the items that we design for this device be generated in the same way?

The document argues that the use of illusionary surfaces and objects will lead to a more intuitive and pleasurable experience for the user. It also, yet again, looks to prior conventions for solutions rather than starting afresh.

Every theorem of mathematics, every significant result of science, is a challenge to our imagination as interface designers. Can we find ways of expressing these principles in an interface? What new objects and new operations does a principle suggest? What a priori surprising relationship between those objects and operations are revealed by the principle? Can we find interfaces which vividly reveal those relationships, preferably in a way that is unique to the phenomenon being studied?

les interfaces ne sont nullement régulées par cette structure de regard, mais bien par une structure d'action.

TextpressoCentral

There is a lot of evidence that quite subtle changes to user interfaces can have dramatic effects on how the interfaces are used. For example, the size of a search box or the text that accompanies it can considerably influence the queries that people submit.

The whole gendered usage of hearts seems to have escaped Twitter. So does the fact that people fave (with stars) in complex ways - they are bookmarks, they are likes, they are nods of the head. But they are not indicators of love. I feel very weird loving tweets by random men I've only just started a conversation with. Not that there's anything wrong with feminine. But women - and men, in their own ways - are well-aware of how feminized visual signals get read by others, and in an identity space like Twitter, I suspect that will really minimize usage. Or at least until we all get used to it.

MyInterfaceImpl

The on-line annotations were also more likely to be anchored in complete sentences.

The book or physical instance, then, is one of many levels of address.

Because a text can be queried at the level of single words and then related to other texts at the same level of abstraction: the table of all possible words could be defined as the aggregate of points of address at a given level of abstraction (the word, as in Google’s new n-gram corpus).

the interface currently works quite slowly, much slower than regular web content.

Affinity Diagramming