LukeBMM
The other is Tania Rascia's (which shows each rule being applied to the same example, instead of each rule being demonstrated in a vacuum). I think the two different ways of illustrating the impact of each "rule" can be helpful for a pretty wide range of folks who often think in different modes.
Of all the opinions someone could hold strongly, that's certainly one of them.
My favorite guide is by Tania Rascia [1]. It walks through each of the "rules" and applies them to a simple example. My second favorite is by Anthony Hobday [2] and each "rule" gets its own, simple example to demonstrate.
Google's involvement in the internet ecosystem exactly aligns with their profit motive: Putting relevant ads in front of individuals based upon data they've gleaned from relatively "un-sexy" sources like search, analytics, libraries, font hosting, email, chat, etc.
I'm not opposed to companies making a profit. I try, however, to keep in mind conflicts of interest when choosing my sources of information. Everything anyone at Google says about the web is suspect because that is a conflict of interest. Google, as an organization, exists to turn web traffic into profit and should always be considered accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things
Edit: Oh, yeah. How about Tufte ('83 for Visual Display of Quantitative Information) and Albers (Interaction of Color in '63). I should think first, then post.
You can put those properties which should vary in ems and then all you have to do is change the large and small font sizes from the default. Margin, however, remains in rems because it needs to be consistent. Everything will scale proportionately and your large and small button classes are clear, expressive, and concise.
Gitlab Pages requires a little more effort to get up and going, but it's more flexible.
{ Edit: tried both old and www with the same results. }
https://www.taniarascia.com/design-for-developers/ (Tania Rascia's take is my favorite, for its clarity and scope, even though I disagree with a few of the suggestions)
https://paul.copplest.one/blog/design.html (Paul Copplestone's is a little less up my alley, but some folks prefer it)
I still remember trying to explain to a previous employer why I needed Debabelizer to create appropriately-striped TIFFs in addition to Photoshop. In hindsight, the me of today would have said then, "I just need it to do this job, which will make you far more money than it costs to buy a single license." The me of then wasn't quite as savvy.
It does, however, serve as a reminder that folks who dig their heels in when presented with a new development that contradicts the familiar - myself included - are going through a shared, relatable process and the end result of that is always something new. It's inherently going to be its own kind of advancement or progress, even if the intention is preservation of the status quo. That leads to thoughts like, "What does this person want to preserve?", "What new development could come out of this and is it useful to consider?", and "What does this person fear this new idea will disrupt?" Those are handy thoughts to keep in mind when trying to reach a common understanding of the change at hand.
"The fundamentalist mind" isn't an alien, foreign reaction held by a few disillusioned radicals, but a totally normal and relatable coping mechanism (albeit taken to a horrific extreme in some rare cases). That serves as a basis to talk about it constructively, IMO, whether I'm dealing with a new client who wants to change everything (but without changing anything, naturally) or my uncle who proudly shares misinformation from Facebook that supports his comfort with "the way things used to be." This includes questioning my own motivations when I catch myself jumping through hoops to make my old beliefs or practices work in a new context.
From the preface (or maybe chapter 1, I forget and gave away my copy so I can't check):
Modernization has always been a painful process. People
feel alienated and lost when fundamental changes in
their society make the world strange and unrecognizable.
... Fundamentalists feel that they are battling against
forces that threaten their most sacred values. ... Those
of us — myself included — who relish the freedoms and
achievements of modernity find it hard to comprehend the
distress these cause religious fundamentalists. Yet
modernization is often experienced not as a liberation
but as an aggressive assault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_for_GodIt seems a valid milestone, if not the first example.
https://github.com/mathiasbynens/dotfiles/blob/master/.macos