That's nice in theory, but it's also yet another example of Apple innovating and getting it right, and people implementing a quick copy without going through nearly as much necessary design thinking as Apple did. The end result is that only Apple's implementation is better than the default one. Of course I'm not blaming you personally for that, I mean, even Microsoft has fallen prey to this phenomenon (and on a vastly larger scale). But it would nice if people were more observant.
I appreciate your feedback. There are always ways of improving something, even in the case of Apple’s implementations.
Are there particular aspects of this implementation you feel make it worse than Apple’s?
Ultimately we see this as an incremental improvement to the default text-decoration underline styling provided by most operating systems and browsers. However, we’re eager to work with OS community to improve this even further. Thanks again!
Sorry somehow I thought that was obvious. Basically they cut the line very close to the letter, that way it doesn't break the line visually, which is what the other comments here on HN seem to criticize. It's a very simple and subtle thing but that's what makes the difference. My point was that sometimes the incremental steps between the default design and Apple's design are worst than if you just kept to the default design. You have to make a big step before perceiving benefits.
Sorry for the pigeonholding though, that was more of a general rant.
You keep repeating that comment but no, they are not. The idea is clever and the result is pretty good, but what the parent is saying – that in your implementation the line looks more broken up because it's more separated from the glyphs – is true.
You may be able to fix that by tweaking the shadows but as it is currently implemented it works pretty well for larger display text but not so much for smaller body text.
