Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
There's a piece of shit untested line of js executed before the rest of the site's js. Probably a piece of shit ad or tracker. There's a bug in it, and it causes an exception. That crashes the entire js stack, and your super-imporant js breaks. js is effectively disabled.
That certainly happens way more often than it fucking should.
-
@heterodox It should happen far more often. Like 100% of the time. I don't want your "piece of shit ad or tracker" js to run, and if you're website won't work without "piece of shit ad or tracker" js, I don't want to see your website.
-
@hardwaregeek I'm talking more "You used document.<function that only exists in Firefox or Chrome Bleeding Edge ™ edition and tanked everything else you were trying to do that was actually important."
-
@heterodox You were replying to a post that explicitly mentioned "piece of shit ad or tracker" js. If you were talking about something else, perhaps you should have made that clearer in your reply.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Now for something I think is correct, but the way they make their point is pants-on-head retarded:
Now imagine if that user had been able to disable Javascript and images and just have the HTML delivered. It wouldn’t have been pretty, but it would have worked.
I wondered about this, and went to check out the website in question.It turns out that no, you can’t. The website is fully JS-driven. If you disable JS then you just get a blank page.
What normal user would even think to disable JS and images? None. Not a single one. The only reason xhe thought of this is that they are a front end dev. Not a single "average user" would even be likely to know that should be an option. Even the way the page was failing would cause a person to think that the site was just down or the internet connection was down, or something:
You've managed to exactly reach the point, while still fully missing it, congratulations! ;-)
Sure, no-one (in the general users) will willingly turn off JS. And they will believe that the site is not properly displaying if JS doesn't load. But they will still be able to partly use it, and if you are in a situation where you know that your connection is less that perfect (such as the example of the guy in the airport, or even the millions of household with piss-poor broadband or no broadband at all -- and I speak from experience here, sometimes my broadband would be faster if I just walked to the exchange to deliver packets myself), this might be enough.
When it's a bad day with my broadband, all pages take ages to load. Most of them are broken because the JS doesn't load (or times out while trying to load more stuff). That's not really OK, but there is nothing I can do about it at the time. Still, some websites that don't over-use JS are still somewhat readable. Not nice, but readable.
That is not about voluntarily disabling JS, nor is it about believing that a site without JS is working fine. It's about still being able to do something with the site on poor conditions.
Now as a dev, you're not going to go around and try to mimick bad network conditions (well you can and ideally should -- and she does mention doing that at some point -- but it's more difficult to test as it can cause random failures). However it is very easy to turn of JS and test that. So it makes sense to put that advice to devs, even if this is not how normal users will ever encounter the situation.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
God. Xer Twitter is just awful.
Code is political.
I hope not. Considering how often my code organisation and naming is called 'nazi'.
-
@remi said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Now for something I think is correct, but the way they make their point is pants-on-head retarded:
Now imagine if that user had been able to disable Javascript and images and just have the HTML delivered. It wouldn’t have been pretty, but it would have worked.
I wondered about this, and went to check out the website in question.It turns out that no, you can’t. The website is fully JS-driven. If you disable JS then you just get a blank page.
What normal user would even think to disable JS and images? None. Not a single one. The only reason xhe thought of this is that they are a front end dev. Not a single "average user" would even be likely to know that should be an option. Even the way the page was failing would cause a person to think that the site was just down or the internet connection was down, or something:
You've managed to exactly reach the point, while still fully missing it, congratulations! ;-)
Sure, no-one (in the general users) will willingly turn off JS. And they will believe that the site is not properly displaying if JS doesn't load. But they will still be able to partly use it, and if you are in a situation where you know that your connection is less that perfect (such as the example of the guy in the airport, or even the millions of household with piss-poor broadband or no broadband at all -- and I speak from experience here, sometimes my broadband would be faster if I just walked to the exchange to deliver packets myself), this might be enough.
When it's a bad day with my broadband, all pages take ages to load. Most of them are broken because the JS doesn't load (or times out while trying to load more stuff). That's not really OK, but there is nothing I can do about it at the time. Still, some websites that don't over-use JS are still somewhat readable. Not nice, but readable.
That is not about voluntarily disabling JS, nor is it about believing that a site without JS is working fine. It's about still being able to do something with the site on poor conditions.
Now as a dev, you're not going to go around and try to mimick bad network conditions (well you can and ideally should -- and she does mention doing that at some point -- but it's more difficult to test as it can cause random failures). However it is very easy to turn of JS and test that. So it makes sense to put that advice to devs, even if this is not how normal users will ever encounter the situation.
How hard did you have to work to miss the point that I was making?
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Everything you write into an editor has political impact.
Probably a direct result of believing that the personal is political.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@powerlord yes, and you should commit Sudoku for those six years.
That would probably be as productive as most government employees.
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@remi I don't want my thread put into the garage because of some other idiot. If you have to move posts you think belong in the garage to the garage, fine whatever. But if I had intended to post this thread in the garage, I would have.
+1 I'm tired of other people torpedoing threads.
Maybe you should stop doing it then?
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@powerlord yes, and you should commit Sudoku for those six years.
:/
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery Dude, calm down.
Do forgive him, he had yet to have his first Nescafé that morning.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Who gives a shit why good things are done? SJWs, that's who. They did the right thing but they did not do it for the right reasons and that is a bad thing. This is the same person that says that progressive enhancement is a moral argument.
I can understand having good reasons for why good things are done.
But, I don't count it as bad if a good thing is done for a neutral reason.
I see it more as they want exclusive control over morality and that's what I find annoying.
"Hey I did exactly what you said for exactly the reasons you said" "I won't be necessary if this continues. So no, you did it wrong, here are the new goalposts."
Yeah, but it wasn't her point. @polygeekery just said it was to fit in with his narrative.
She never said it was bad that it happened. On the contrary, she said it's good that it so happened that people were forced to notice diversity, even if for the wrong reasons.
-
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
She never said it was bad that it happened. On the contrary, she said it's good that it so happened that people were forced to notice diversity, even if for the wrong reasons.
- This statement fits a pattern that you can demonstrate further in the article and in her other content that says contrary to what she typed on the article. She actually sees this as a bad outcome and must be improved.
- She erroneously mixes up technological diversity with ethnic and social status diversity, and leverages that error to make a point for recognizing ethnic and social status diversity later down the line. It's a non-sequitur.
Business should be incentivised to gain ethical outcomes. Using social pressure and getting people fired to gain ethical outcomes is dystopian because not everyone has the same moral system.
There's nothing wrong with a third volunteer party that creates tech and expansions to meet social needs of the impaired. There's nothing saying that business must meet that need.
Business should operate to efficiency for the sake of their investors and employees. As much as people have a disdain for investors (evil greedy people) my retirement is also an investment, which is not a greed motivated, but a need motivated thing. It should also operate efficiently for the sake of their employees. People depend on that income.
If raising the dev costs means firing one of the cleaning ladies, then I don't see that as a good outcome.
-
@boomzilla said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@remi I don't want my thread put into the garage because of some other idiot. If you have to move posts you think belong in the garage to the garage, fine whatever. But if I had intended to post this thread in the garage, I would have.
+1 I'm tired of other people torpedoing threads.
Maybe you should stop doing it then?
How about "fuck you", since I don't do that, and this isn't about me.
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@boomzilla said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@remi I don't want my thread put into the garage because of some other idiot. If you have to move posts you think belong in the garage to the garage, fine whatever. But if I had intended to post this thread in the garage, I would have.
+1 I'm tired of other people torpedoing threads.
Maybe you should stop doing it then?
How about "fuck you", since I don't do that, and this isn't about me.
I believe that you believe that, as crazy as it sounds.
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
this isn't about me
You're a cheap developer then?
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@boomzilla said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@remi I don't want my thread put into the garage because of some other idiot. If you have to move posts you think belong in the garage to the garage, fine whatever. But if I had intended to post this thread in the garage, I would have.
+1 I'm tired of other people torpedoing threads.
Maybe you should stop doing it then?
How about "fuck you", since I don't do that, and this isn't about me.
I could link to several topics you started that should have been in the garage from the OP. You torpedoed your own threads at the outset.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
She never said it was bad that it happened. On the contrary, she said it's good that it so happened that people were forced to notice diversity, even if for the wrong reasons.
- This statement fits a pattern that you can demonstrate further in the article and in her other content that says contrary to what she typed on the article. She actually sees this as a bad outcome and must be improved.
- She erroneously mixes up technological diversity with ethnic and social status diversity, and leverages that error to make a point for recognizing ethnic and social status diversity later down the line. It's a non-sequitur.
Business should be incentivised to gain ethical outcomes. Using social pressure and getting people fired to gain ethical outcomes is dystopian because not everyone has the same moral system.
There's nothing wrong with a third volunteer party that creates tech and expansions to meet social needs of the impaired. There's nothing saying that business must meet that need.
Business should operate to efficiency for the sake of their investors and employees. As much as people have a disdain for investors (evil greedy people) my retirement is also an investment, which is not a greed motivated, but a need motivated thing. It should also operate efficiently for the sake of their employees. People depend on that income.
If raising the dev costs means firing one of the cleaning ladies, then I don't see that as a good outcome.
I hope you realize you didn't contradict anything I said?
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I could link to several topics you started that should have been in the garage from the OP. You torpedoed your own threads at the outset.
How about "fuck you too" since you're the one driving this off topic.
If you want to start "lol lorne is a libtard" or whatever fuck that off to the Garbage.
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
If you want to start "lol lorne is a libtard" or whatever fuck that off to the Garbage.
I never said anything about your political affiliation. I mentioned how you start intentionally inflammatory threads outside of the garage and how that torpedos your threads for you.
Also, your mom.
-
@polygeekery The very fact that it takes people to figure out what software does and how it is organized and the assumptions it must encode to do its job makes code 100% political /thread.
-
@captain said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery The very fact that it takes people to figure out what software does and how it is organized and the assumptions it must encode to do its job makes code 100% political /thread.
You may have a point, but I am failing to see it. Care to expound?
-
@polygeekery Well, consider a view model in some web app. Which fields should it include? What happens if a field is excluded? Who does it affect, and why do we care or not? A politico-economic process answers those questions.
I remember when the realpolitik was to be as inclusive as possible on the web. Remember how standards are good and we hate snowflake browsers like IE6?
-
@charlieda said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I think we're all clear that as it won't make you a profit and you're not forced to do it, you won't do it.
I somehow missed this the first time around. Why should I do something that the market doesn't demand? For altruism?
There is no such thing. Even in Charities I have worked at in the past they have admitted that it is better that even their volunteers are using it as way to get experience and qualifications which in the long term will help them in the long run.
That's why charities do a lot of fundraising by advertising it as a fun activity to do socially. Because they know they are more likely to get people to sign up to the event and sponsorship as a result.
-
@captain said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Well, consider a view model in some web app. Which fields should it include? What happens if a field is excluded? Who does it affect, and why do we care or not? A politico-economic process answers those questions.
I think that you have defined "politico-economic" down to meaninglessness.
-
@captain said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Well, consider a view model in some web app. Which fields should it include?
Whatever fields we need it to include.
I am with boomy. You have twisted the definition of "political" until it is well past its torsion limit.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
No it isn't. It can be, but it is not intrinsically so. I know this seemed like some self-evident philosophical statement when you thought of it, but it is just retarded.
print "Hello World!"Is apparently Real Politik!
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
You have twisted the definition of "political" until it is well past its torsion limit.
The shear stupidity strains my credulity and is causing me a great deal of stress.
-
@hardwaregeek what you have done there, has been noticed.
-
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I hope you realize you didn't contradict anything I said?
You do realize people have meanings to what they say beyond the basic language they type into a textbox?
Yes, she did say that exact thing, yet she commits a non-sequitur for the rest of the article by suggesting social diversity is the same as technological choice diversity.
Seriously, the devs realized people were using other devices? Great. How does that apply to disabled people. It doesn't.
And not only that, the previous statement already established that devs were having to code to two browsers.
What she is suggesting doesn't follow from the points she made, at all.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I hope you realize you didn't contradict anything I said?
You do realize people have meanings to what they say beyond the basic language they type into a textbox?
Fuck you, too, buddy.
Yes, she did say that exact thing, yet she commits a non-sequitur for the rest of the article by suggesting social diversity is the same as technological choice diversity.
I got the feeling she thinks one can follow the other, but not that to her they are the same thing.
Seriously, the devs realized people were using other devices? Great. How does that apply to disabled people. It doesn't.
Ah, so that's where you wander astray?
If someone says "at this point people realized diversity is a thing" it can mean that thanks to one kind of diversity people realized there were others.
It's a common rhetorical construct, you can't really be that bewildered when you encounter it!
And not only that, the previous statement already established that devs were having to code to two browsers.
Two isn't necesserily "diversity".
What she is suggesting doesn't follow from the points she made, at all.
I'd say the same thing about the bulk of your posts.
-
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Two isn't necesserily "diversity".
Three is. :/
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I got the feeling she thinks one can follow the other, but not that to her they are the same thing.
Really? I don't see how you get that at all.
@kt_ said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
If someone says "at this point people realized diversity is a thing" it can mean that thanks to one kind of diversity people realized there were others.
It's a common rhetorical construct, you can't really be that bewildered when you encounter it!Not only would that be speculative, she never makes that point, at all. She literally says that iPhone led to the discovery of diversity as a general concept, which she said right after stating that devs had to handle diversity.
I mean, she wouldn't be the first person who has no clue Apple didn't invent a thing.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not only would that be speculative, she never makes that point, at all. She literally says that iPhone led to the discovery of diversity as a general concept, which she said right after stating that devs had to handle diversity.
THIS.
I listen to this guy a lot and he is very pro-freemarket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMhOQR1RjPY&t=1s
The iPhone which was an expensive device and still is completely shook up the market and made people think about the web differently. I am sure part of it was Steve Jobs not liking his blackberry and thinking he could do better. But the change in the industry as been enormous since.
Actually giving a crap about the client has become a thing, once of the things I was probably arguing over 10 years ago.
The market makes people care because it gives them a direct incentive to.
This is why I think she was looking at her "pyramid" the wrong way round and seeing it through a "marxist's lens".
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not only would that be speculative, she never makes that point, at all. She literally says that iPhone led to the discovery of diversity as a general concept, which she said right after stating that devs had to handle diversity.
I mean, she wouldn't be the first person who has no clue Apple didn't invent a thing.
I think that she's correct here, actually. Mobile wasn't really a big thing until the iPhone caused the smartphone market to explode. It's not that Apple invented smartphones but that they were the start of a lot of people having them.
And jokes aside, we all know that the difference is a lot more than 3px.
-
http://motherfuckingwebsite.com explained those things in a much clearer way and without bringing SJW isms into the issue
-
@boomzilla said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I think that she's correct here, actually.
On the very specific and isolated point that iPhone motivated developers to cater to mobile screen sizes and interaction.
Not on the point that it drew developers to managing diversity.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
explained those things in a much clearer way and without bringing SJW isms into the issue
That was my immediate thought. Thanks for actually bringing that up.
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
made people think about the web differently
Are you sure???
a) Many of the changes were definitely Internet based, but strictly speaking, were they Web?
b) Do people (general population) really think about what happens inside a device (or in systems it is communicated to)?
-
@thecpuwizard said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
b) Do people (general population) really think
No.
x.com
