how can the UI code of a product be kept a step away from the customers cutomisation?

im a UI deleloper for an educational product. How can the UI code of a product be kept a step away from the customers cutomisation? Now i m keeping the product branch and client’s brach seperalty. But its really a headache to when its comes to issue fiexes.. need to update in all branches. Is any techinique to keep the product branch seperatly and client will overlide the customisations using webpack or any other technique.

Browser cache not clearing regardless of meta tags

So, the problem is as follows. I am trying to make a small html page update to the latest version on server while it is loaded. I have gotten to the point where I am just trying to make this work, with a page as barebones as it can get. I have tried this on firefox, internet explorer and microsoft edge, all with the same results.

<html>  <head>  <meta http-equiv="cache-control" content="no-cache"> <!-- tells browser not to cache --> <meta http-equiv="expires" content="-1"> <!-- says that the cache expires 'now' --> <meta http-equiv="pragma" content="no-cache"> <!-- says not to use cached stuff, if there is any -->   </head>  <body> testing cache update - 4 </body>    </html> 

This is the entire sourcecode of the page, and no matter how i tweak the meta tags, i -always- have to hard reload with ctrl+f5 to get the latest version of the page (i tweak the text in body) to show up.

Does anyone have any idea what’s going on here, and how i can make my page always load the latest version?

to what extent is white text on medium-to-light grey background objectively bad practice?

I made the mistake of openly criticizing a webpage because I was asked to have an opinion. I ruled negatively. To what extent is the designer culpable for my unfavorable critique?

Legibility judged objectively?

Intrinsic and external factors like monitors and eyes play a role here.

Small, 8 to 10px, white sans text, on a solid shade of gray, that is somewhere between 10-35% still caused me to drop a “star”… probably because the lcd screen helped. Screen viewing angle, pixel density, maybe even screen reflection might have influenced me. Yet am I to blame or is this supposed to be avoided ?

Given that I have slight astigmatism, I shouldn’t appreciate tiny fonts that are too thin or light at all. But I actually use this very setup right now for my desktop environment, with supbixel rendering enabled being a necessity to render the font properly, it’s so thin. I’m not blind.

Is it tenable that one shouldn’t be needing to weigh such external factors, if one sticks to good practices, like higher contrast between text and background ?

There was also no real necessity on picking such a light grey. Which in end effect gave me the impression of carelessness – while the author might have tried to keep things warm and cozy with his choice of colors.

Relevance issues

The thing is, the user isn’t reading a poem with this setup. I’m talking about menu items that are only going to be actually read until the user learns instinctively click on the 3rd word in the row.

I personally believe legibility is important. But good practices aren’t rules and I can’t penalize the author because he trespassed against Article X. Is this still somehow objectively a faux-pas from an UX perspective or is it rather that I was prone to simply subjectively “finding fault”, frustrated that I couldn’t read a few words on a glance ? To what extent is white text on light grey background objectively bad practice?

Bonus question along the same lines:

This menu was also unnecessarily hiding from view, until being called upon through a click. This superfluousness made me drop another star, as it gets in the way of efficient interaction. Except, it’s only one extra click. Sneaking in dynamics for the sake of having dynamics can be done without it getting in the way though.

Same question. Did I hold a valid grudge ? Should the author get it or rather get offended ?

Why do 2019-era email clients [(+/-) a few years] often allow you to delete or enter new destination addresses, but not fully edit them?

Suppose that you are writing an email. You mistype someone’s address in the “To” field. For example, maybe you write, “” Before sending the email, you remember that that person spells their name in a funny way. You want to delete the letter “H” in “john.” The correct email address is “”

In a significant number of present-day email clients you cannot edit an email address already entered into the “To” field. Once you press enter or shift the keyboard focus to the body of the email, the “To”-address changes. The user interface changes what you have typed into something which can be deleted/removed, but not edited. This is also true of the carbon-copy fields. If you mistype someone’s email, you have to delete the address completely, and re-type it. For many email clients, left-clicking on the email address might delete it, but it does not enable text editing.

I am talking about the front-end of the interface, not what’s under the hood. What is weird is that in the years from 2000 to 2010, editing a destination email address was trivial. In most email clients, the “To” field was a text-box. You could click anywhere inside of the “To” field and type almost anything you liked. The backspace key worked fine; the delete key worked fine; anything.

Features do not become popular in multiple competing companies user-interfaces, unless those features are an improvement over the old way of doing things. There must be a rationale for disallowing users from editing email addresses previously typed into the “to” field. Technically, you can edit them by deleting and re-typing from scratch, but hopefully my meaning is apparent. What is the thinking behind this? Is it a matter of making “the common case” fast? Which user-cases are faster/easier using the (new or delete) style of design instead of the old (edit text) style of design?

What are some advanced techniques of UX Competitor Analysis?

What are some advanced techniques of UX Competitor Analysis and what is the number of competitors that must be analyzed to have relevant results and get enough data to create a solid product? Also, how complex it should be? My main concern is to have a never-ending list with the data that is hard to interpret.

According to Nielsen Norman Group’s “User Experience Careers” survey report, 61% of UX professionals prefer to do the competitive analysis for their projects and the benefits of carrying out this type of analysis are obvious, but are few resources of how complex this research should be and how to find info that really matters.

Besides the unique features, how do you identify user loyalty and engagement in the apps of our competitors and find out if their approach really works?

How to take advantage of this method when your product needs to be the first on the market and not only in a small niche and also if the type of business is in a relatively new domain of activity?

Is it an inconvenience if my installation script requires a lot of reboots?

I’m writing a shell script that automatically installs some drivers and programs that depend on each other sequentially, which are required to run the main application. After each successful installation, the computer needs to reboot before the next program can be installed.

I have tried to make the script as easy to use as possible, for example the script automates the reboot process and deletes itself after completion. Once the script is executed, the user can basically grab a cup of coffee and chill for 15 minutes until it is completed.

Still, I’m concerned about whether it will make a difference in the user’s decision to install the main app if the script didn’t require those restarts.