• poinck@lemmy.world
    2·
    5 minutes ago

    To me, they are just indicators of how much content I can expect. I scroll with the mouse wheel or using the page down/up keys. I don’t grab the thing. I only need to see the indicator when I am scrolling.

    But I wonder whether there is a accesibility aspect to always visible and wide scrollbars. I think, the best way to deal with it, is to make it an option how they look and behave.

  • antonim@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 hour ago

    Do you remember the feel of switching from 1998 to 2001? It felt like stepping into the future.

      • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
        4·
        3 hours ago

        My only criticism is lack of affordance on the slider. Is the dark part the slider or the light part? Some of the newer ones have the little ridges for “traction”.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        3·
        3 hours ago

        The issue with 1988 is that it isn’t intuitive what the background color is, and thus if the bar is up or down.

        The middle years are obvious because of the 3d effect. The last one is obvious because the background is the same for both the arrows and the bar.

  • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    6·
    5 hours ago

    Definitely either 88 or 98. Large, very visible, no bullshit. I prefer 98, but would also be perfectly happy with 88. The reason I like 98 better than 88 is because 98, while not as high of contrast, is closer to if it’s physically there, with shadows and stuff, and therefore visually faster recognizable as a scroll bar, it’s more intuitive.

    • kboy101222@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      4·
      5 hours ago

      Give me 98 with the little lines of the next 3. I think it enhances noticeability quite a lot without adding a distracting amount of contrast

    • SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org
      2·
      4 hours ago

      88, because it covers visually impaired better. That higher contrast pays off. But I remember you could do some color theming for the 98 version, so maybe it couldve been fixed in that regard. And I agree on the design being generally easier to understand.

  • InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works
    931·
    10 hours ago

    I hate the modern ones you need to hover above so they even display, and then it’s 1 pixel wide and a shade of grey that’s about 2% darker than white.
    Less functional and 500 lines of js garbage.

    • M137@lemmy.today
      1·
      4 hours ago

      Some suck, sure, but some work well. The ones on MacOS are good IMO, and some android ones (while others absolutely suck).

    • chisel@piefed.socialEnglish
      191·
      9 hours ago

      It’s a few lines of css, no JS required.

      .my-div:hover {
  overflow-x: scroll;
}

      And the look and feel of the scrollbar is generally determined by the browser/OS. Unless someone does a custom scrollbar implementation, but that is exceedingly rare. So that thin rounded gray bar is a browser/OS design, again, without any JS.

  • jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish
    432·
    10 hours ago

    1998 was truly the best time. When all OS widgets looked the same. And could be used in apps, and everything had a consistent look. Yeah you could override this in your app. But fuck people who did that. Everything looked so nice and uniform and you knew what to expect from a widget and its look and behavior. Get off my lawn.

  • sonofearth@lemmy.world
    9·
    7 hours ago

    I love how 1998 looks. It is clean and servers the purpose. 2001-2009 feel over designed, 1988 and 2012 not sure whether the dark part is the scroller or the light part lol.