After building a growing set of GitHub Copilot skills across areas such as Azure API Management, infrastructure as code authoring, and diagram generation with tools like Excalidraw and Draw.io, I have found that the difference between a skill that is genuinely useful and one that quietly disappoints usually comes down to a small number of design choices. Most of those choices are easy to miss…

Source

If you have been building GitHub Copilot agents and skills for any length of time, you eventually run into the same problem: creating them is the easy part. Sharing them properly is where the real friction starts. At first, the workaround feels reasonable. You build a useful agent for Terraform provider upgrades. You add a skill for architecture reviews. Maybe you create another for diagram…

Source

Caleb Jacobs (via Hacker News):

While the agricultural manufacturing giant pointed out in a statement that this is no admission of wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $99 million into a fund for farms and individuals who participated in a class action lawsuit. Specifically, that money is available to those involved who paid John Deere’s authorized dealers for large equipment repairs from January 2018. This means that plaintiffs will recover somewhere between 26% and 53% of overcharge damages, according to one of the court documents—far beyond the typical amount, which lands between 5% and 15%.

The settlement also includes an agreement by Deere to provide “the digital tools ​required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair” of tractors, combines, and other machinery for 10 years. That part is crucial, as farmers previously resorted to hacking their own equipment’s software just to get it up and running again.

Previously:

• Right to Repair Legislation in 50 States
• Apple Self Service Repair

The classic – but still important – rule of web design says to avoid labeling links “click here.”

It’s one of the oldest web design principles. Tim Berners-Lee wrote about it in 1992; if you visit this link right now, it might be the oldest page you will have ever visited.

The gist of it is simple: the mechanics of following a link are not important, and should be replaced by something that can make the link stand on its own. This is important for screen readers, but also for basic scannability: a “click here” label has a lousy scent and requires you to take in the surroundings to understand what it really does. The rule is, in effect, a variant of “show, don’t tell.”

(In modern days, you can also add another transgression: on touch devices one cannot click, but only tap.)

There is a similar rule about button copy design. Button labels, too, should be self-sustainable. Below is a good example (just reading the button lets me understand what I’ll achieve by clicking it), juxtaposed with the bad one (“OK” is so generic you have to read the rest of the window).

Earlier this week, I was passing some train cars on my coffee walk, and saw this bit of UI:

Why are these okay, and “click here” is not? Here’s why, I think: Yes, the ultimate goal is to move a train car, or empty it, or send it on its way. But here, the mechanics matter, too. They’re dangerous. They require preparations. No one says “I’m going to open my laptop and start clicking on links,” but I imagine people say “we have to jack this car” or “we need to lift it.” Even “here” has depth: these are specific tool mounting points. Choosing the wrong “here” will have consequences.

But, going back to the web, avoiding “click here” in strings isn’t always easy. Imagine trying to put a link in the sentence “To change your avatar, visit the profile page.” I’m personally never sure how to linkify it well:

To change your avatar, visit the profile page.
To change your avatar, visit the profile page.
To change your avatar, visit the profile page.

Linking “change your avatar” seems correct since it points to the eventual outcome, but then it leaves the actual destination dangling and unlinked – like putting an accent on a wrong syllable. “Visit the profile page” is better than “click here,” but it’s still not scannable. Linking the entire sentence seems strange and complicated to me, and I also disagree with Tim Berners-Lee, who on the page I liked to above seems to suggest this should be…

To change your avatar, visit the profile page.

…just because this might make a user think there are two separate destinations and actions, and contribute a wrong mental model.

You could, of course, simplify this to “Change your avatar,” but while that would work in a UI string, it wouldn’t within a larger paragraph of text, or a blog post.

#details #flow #web

Hannah Murphy, reporting for the Financial Times (paywalled, but Ars Technica has a no-paywall syndicated copy):

The company recently began prioritising a Zuckerberg AI character, three of the people said.

The Meta chief is personally involved in training and testing his animated AI, which could offer conversation and feedback to employees, according to one person. They added that the character is being trained on the billionaire’s mannerisms, tone and publicly available statements, as well as his own recent thinking on company strategies, so that employees might feel more connected to the founder through interactions with it.

This is so straight out of every dystopian sci-fi film about an evil corporation that it’s hard to believe.

Top comment on Hacker News, from “flibbityflob”:

How will a machine ever replace his famous warmth or empathy?

Link: ft.com/content/02107c23-6c7a-4c19-b8e2-b45f4bb9ce5f