Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You
-
@masonwheeler 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:
airline reservation apps didn't work over the flaky wifi in airports. Which you'd think would be one environment they'd test in.
That would be the last place I'd expect they'd test in; once you're in the airport and on the wi-fi, at that point you don't need to book an airline reservation!
Yes, and that's the problem. You assumed you knew everything and then fucked over your users.
-
So, I'm going to give this a fair shake. I was kind of teasing before
tl;dr
I can agree with the need to slim up the internet and make it more accessible.
I can even agree with the titular and outlined reasons.
However, the explanations for those reasons are just alien, and unnecessarily accusatory, to me. Which kind of undermines the goal of convincing people.
If instead they just said, "You can reach more people and save more money by simplifying, cutting excess images, using more templated forms of display, dynamically loading javascript and avoiding it when not building interactivity, and limit interactivity. And I reached this conclusion by being empathetic and recognizing the diverse needs of all of your customers." then the point of the article would be the same, and it might actually convince more people than urban siliconiites.
I mean, this seems overly talkative from a developer who's writing about the internet not being about developers.
---.
First I'm ignoring any inaccuracies leading up to the point, because what if this isn't the most informed person and they want to just get the social point across. So I'm skipping down to the iPhone bit.
The first thing I notice is that the person cleverly introduces diversity of people, which is a bad use of the term, it's not congruent to diversity in the social aspect but the usability aspect. What devices do they use? is the question. Fortunately they acknowledge that this was a business motivation because of customers using the phone to interact. Honestly, I could find someone that maybe opted for just a phone because they didn't have as large of an income, but what are we advertising to those people exactly? Well, I can think of good uses, like job applications and interacting with government and such, rather than just commerce itself.
I'm going to continue reading, but I want to look out for the subtle "it does not follow" switch from diversity of technology users to ethnic/sexual/abled diversity.
Ironically they introduce iPhone as this exception to diversity because they just described a situation where there were two browsers and the result from their point is the same. I'm going to chalk this up to poor wording. Maybe they could have presented it as two different forms of diversity by explaining that the difference wasn't caused by the technology in the background but the usability. Which made it easier to overcome the difference in usability with document presentation, rather than API.
But again, that's just the same naivete as presented in earlier segments.
Back to the point.
"Edge case" is still a valid term even if we dismantle the bloat. You're still going to have grandma on Tandy trying to run Netscape. I'm sorry, but edge case isn't just a hand waive, we simply can't serve every device. I mean, even old games can't run on Windows 10. Even modernizing Morrowind hits frame spikes when my machine is 50x more powerful than back then. Emulating the past has its limits. That said, I agree mostly with this part. We should have lighter javascript, or even no-script, alternatives. what can HTML 5 do out of the box. I heard that is was supposed to be able to handle some things natively, but I never bothered because work experience required.
Empathy is a skill.
I'd argue more that empathy grows or shrinks with your experiences, not with exercise. "Patriarchy" You know, there's a reason they use a ethereal term for it, because they can't pinpoint what patriarchy is. I don't think anyone's told me I couldn't, or expected me not to, express empathy. There might be that one guy in a rocking chair in the boondocks in that small town I grew up in, but he got too tired of letting people know how they should act and fell asleep in his chair.
Not everyone is alike.
That's why we hallway test. I mean, there are already processes in place for handling this.
Not everyone is rich.
Again, there's a limit to this. I don't remember working in an environment where they didn't care about people with less tech power. It was always about people with incompatible tech. We tested multiple browser environments, including old old old versions of explorer. The only place there was less concern was in enterprise software, where we expected customers to build a new system with the new release.
Not everyone is well connected
Again, I find myself agreeing with the points, but not with the explanations. And even then, it's not something I haven't thought about. Trust me, out here in the country side, connectivity is a BIG CONCERN.
Not everyone is able-bodied
Again, I've said that accessibility is better handled by the browser and not replicated in every single page out there. We've already talked about trimming down the page. Why load custom accessibility when you can just let the OS/browser do it.
As for color-blindness, I suppose they haven't noticed all the software out there that appeals to color blindness by offering a distinct color palette or shaped icons instead? I did that at my job. I also haven't worked on software that didn't translate to at least one other language.
As always, these "Patriarchy" folks seem to come from an environment where they don't handle hurdles natively (from their own backyard) like we do in the south. Tucked away in super dense cities where they can safely ignore half the population. Then they somehow expect that everyone is like this. I don't know. Maybe I'm an "edge" case.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
The first thing I notice is that the person cleverly introduces diversity of people, which is a bad use of the term, it's not congruent to diversity in the social aspect but the usability aspect.
Diversity is diversity. Not sure what you're trying to say here. "the social aspect", "the usability aspect". Wanna define those terms?
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I'm going to continue reading, but I want to look out for the subtle "it does not follow" switch from diversity of technology users to ethnic/sexual/abled diversity.
"By paragraph two I've already mentally bucketed this article in my 'political incorrectness haha I'm so clever' bucket and from now on I'll just be looking for ways to pwn the libs instead of evaluating the article based on its content. All because I don't know what the dictionary definition of the word 'diversity' is."
Great. So glad you chimed in.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I'd argue more that empathy grows or shrinks with your experiences, not with exercise.
Ok...
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
"Patriarchy" You know, there's a reason they use a ethereal term for it, because they can't pinpoint what patriarchy is.
Oh those evil "they"s! "They" probably even think women should be able to vote, the bastards!
I know this completely sailed over your head, but she's making fun of the "men's right" crowd you're either in or extremely influenced by right now, you know, the type who see a statement from a woman who writes about video games and feels it's their patriotic duty to fill their Facebook and Twitter with threats about beheading their pets. Those people don't get a lot of practice with empathy. That's the joke, ha ha.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not everyone is alike.
That's why we hallway test. I mean, there are already processes in place for handling this.If developers actually did it. I mean, we're sitting here using NodeBB. Nobody involved with this turd tested anything.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not everyone is able-bodied
Again, I've said that accessibility is better handled by the browser and not replicated in every single page out there. We've already talked about trimming down the page. Why load custom accessibility when you can just let the OS/browser do it.Most sites actively sabotage browser accessibility features.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
As for color-blindness, I suppose they haven't noticed all the software out there that appeals to color blindness by offering a distinct color palette or shaped icons instead? I did that at my job. I also haven't worked on software that didn't translate to at least one other language.
Well there's 3 sites out of the 100,000,000 that do it, therefore it's not a problem and nobody should talk about it ever.
Look, it's great that you personally (according to yourself) do everything perfectly right, but what does that have to do with anything? The article wasn't written to you specifically. Is that something you were unclear on?
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
As always, these "Patriarchy" folks seem to come from an environment where they don't handle hurdles natively (from their own backyard) like we do in the south. Tucked away in super dense cities where they can safely ignore half the population.
Wha... wha...?
First of all, how do you know she didn't come from the south, are you a creepy stalker now or is that the world's largest ass-pull?
Secondly, the south doesn't have super-dense cities? That's weird, because I was in Miami a few weeks ago, I didn't realize it had been moved to, I dunno, Connecticut.
Thirdly, people in big cities can "safely ignore half the population"? Huh? What does that even mean? Wouldn't they walk into them on sidewalks?
Fourthly, if I grew up in a small town in Washington State (population 1200), does that make me one of "those folks"? Or does it not count if it's not in the South?
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Then they somehow expect that everyone is like this. I don't know.
Everybody's like what, making strange contrary-to-all-fact-and-reason ass-pulls in forums? No I think just you are like that.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I know this completely sailed over your head, but she's making fun of the "men's right" crowd you're either in or extremely influenced by right now, you know, the type who see a statement from a woman who writes about video games and feels it's their patriotic duty to fill their Facebook and Twitter with threats about beheading their pets. Those people don't get a lot of practice with empathy. That's the joke, ha ha.
You know, I think you're a bit too far the other way if you think any of this is appropriate. Everyone agrees that harassing people is messed up and shouldn't happen. I think the MRA guys are stupid, because focusing on gender is pathetic and stupid regardless of who does it, but I don't feel the need to make fun of them at every turn, and certainly not to blame them for something they didn't do. Sure, maybe some of that crowd did what you claim. If so, that's awful and pathetic. But anyone who thinks, 'All you people are the same' is a bigot, and it sounds like that may just possibly include you.
Conflating things to attack people, and then dragging it into unrelated topics is a scummy thing to do.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Diversity is diversity. Not sure what you're trying to say here. "the social aspect", "the usability aspect". Wanna define those terms?
Sorry, bit of a read ahead there.
They subtly swap from diversity as a technology choice or (I had no option) of the user, to the progressive social diversity later in the article.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
By paragraph two I've already mentally bucketed this article in my 'political incorrectness haha I'm so clever' bucket and from now on I'll just be looking for ways to pwn the libs instead of evaluating the article based on its content.
Not really. Just saying I'll have to filter this out so I can get something useful from the article, which is what I did.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
I know this completely sailed over your head, but she's making fun of the "men's right" crowd you're either in or extremely influenced by right now, you know, the type who see a statement from a woman who writes about video games and feels it's their patriotic duty to fill their Facebook and Twitter with threats about beheading their pets. Those people don't get a lot of practice with empathy. That's the joke, ha ha.
I think you just made this up.
The point she introduced patriarchy was where she said that men weren't allowed to feel empathy. At which point I said that I don't know where they get this stuff from, because it's a harmful stereotype to pretend that all of society thinks that way.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
If developers actually did it. I mean, we're sitting here using NodeBB. Nobody involved with this turd tested anything.
Yeah. Sure. A community forum wasn't hallway tested. See, this is what frustrates me. It's always SOMEONE ELSE's responsibility. Never the person bringing up the issue or complaining that society should change.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Well there's 3 sites out of the 100,000,000 that do it, therefore it's not a problem and nobody should talk about it ever.
Look, it's great that you personally (according to yourself) do everything perfectly right, but what does that have to do with anything? The article wasn't written to you specifically. Is that something you were unclear on?It's an accusatory toned article. My point is that the tone should be shifted to a helpful one.
That aside, the author seems shackled by their own experiences and makes a lot of assumptions about the entire industry.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
First of all, how do you know she didn't come from the south
I don't
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Secondly, the south doesn't have super-dense cities?
Typically, no.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Thirdly, people in big cities can "safely ignore half the population"? Huh? What does that even mean? Wouldn't they walk into them on sidewalks?
Part of ignoring people is literally walking into them.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Fourthly, if I grew up in a small town in Washington State (population 1200), does that make me one of "those folks"? Or does it not count if it's not in the South?
Like we do in the south is not exclusionary terminology. I didn't say "Like ONLY WE do".
Look, I told you what I pulled out of the article.
I told you I agree with the basic premise.
I told you I agree with the key points.
I just disagree with how those points are being made.
I even gave you an example of a constructive way of making the points that would have a much higher likelihood of changing people's minds.
So, no, this is not a good article. It's a bad article that makes a few good points and then poorly backs those points up.
-
@jazzyjosh said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
So, overall, good article. One point, speaking specifically to the types of apps I develop:
If you ever think “ffs, why don’t those users with old laptops and browsers just upgrade??” then try and think about their circumstances. Ask “can they afford to do so?”
Yes. They're a fucking business. They can afford to not use an insecure as shit browser.
Side note:
Such a simple thing, but offering a lever rather than a rotating knob means that the door becomes usable by people with arthritis, people who have hand or arm amputations, or people with hand/arm injuries.
They're also insecure, but there are mitigations that no one uses.
This is dumb
.No it isn't. I've gone on long, swear filled tirades here about this very subject.
There are sites that assume "until every piece of js loads, and all my flashy animations are available, and my accordions can collapse and all my checkboxes dance when you tickle them-- well, I don't want you to see the content.
Meanwhile the content is RIGHT FUCKING THERE because it's just a chunk of HTML of a 250 word article.
But because of the js, they slap a huge absolute position, opaque, 100% div over the screen so you can't see what's happening. Maybe with a happy dancing logo.
So as far as I'm concerned, in that 5-10 seconds of the page doing literally nothing that I can see or interact with, it's broken.
If they had coded their page PROPERLY, then the content would show first. I can start reading while the rest of the page boots up. Or I can block the JS because I don't need collapsing accordions and dancing checkboxes. I just want to read the article.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
she is seeing everything through some sort of "marxist lens".
That's where I stopped reading lucas1's retarded comment. Did anybody score better than me?
My attention tends to dart back and forth across a paragraph as I read. I saw "marxist lens" before anything else, and stopped there. On a distance-in, we're tied. On a total words read, I beat you.
-
@lucas1 said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@blakeyrat Oh looks like someone wants an argument.
:DEBATE_ME_BRO_SEALION.wmv:
-
@lorne-kates You're lucky. While to some extent he has a point, it's worded in that rather "unique" way of his.
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
You know, I think you're a bit too far the other way if you think any of this is appropriate. Everyone agrees that harassing people is messed up and shouldn't happen. I think the MRA guys are stupid, because focusing on gender is pathetic and stupid regardless of who does it, but I don't feel the need to make fun of them at every turn, and certainly not to blame them for something they didn't do. Sure, maybe some of that crowd did what you claim. If so, that's awful and pathetic. But anyone who thinks, 'All you people are the same' is a bigot, and it sounds like that may just possibly include you.
Conflating things to attack people, and then dragging it into unrelated topics is a scummy thing to do.-
I was making fun of Xaade because he instantly took the perfectly neutral word "diversity" and started acting as if it was all about social justice warrior men's right gamergate nonsense. And anybody who does that is at best fuzzy-headed on the whole concept of critiquing an article.
-
The only other time I mentioned it, I was just explaining a joke in the article which apparently flew right over Xaade's head. Probably because of point 1.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
They subtly swap from diversity as a technology choice or (I had no option) of the user, to the progressive social diversity later in the article.
No; diversity is diversity. This swap is entirely in your own head.
I don't have time to type it up now, please hit a dictionary.
-
-
Not replying to anyone in particular, but I respectfully submit that this discussion has devolved to the point that it should be moved to the
.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
No; diversity is diversity. This swap is entirely in your own head.
You have now convinced me that you are ranting just to be a contrarian and not because you have any actual rationality to back it up with.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
was making fun of Xaade because he instantly took the perfectly neutral word "diversity" and started acting as if it was all about social justice warrior men's right gamergate nonsense. And anybody who does that is at best fuzzy-headed on the whole concept of critiquing an article.
From my perspective, you do the same thing when you run all of those things together as he does when he runs all diversity things together.
-
@heterodox said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Not replying to anyone in particular, but I respectfully submit that this discussion has devolved to the point that it should be moved to the
.I kind of agree. The article is interesting or at least fun to read, but since apparently saying "stop putting JS before HTML" is Marxist and SJW, this has no longer its place here.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Diversity is diversity.
No it isn't. Which is to say that there are many different dimensions on which to consider diversity.
-
I'm going to paste in my post about this from the quick links thread:
@bb36e That's a good article. Aside from the over simplifications of history, this sort of thing drives me bonkers:
However, one of them works for all people, while the other deliberately excludes huge segments of the population.
Saying "deliberately" strikes me as being in bad faith and in contradiction with the previous "lessons." I mean, sure, maybe someone deliberately meant to keep people or dogs from using the knob but that's assuming a lot there and is the sort of thing that will turn people off of the rest of your (xer) message.
Better to say something like, "effectively excludes."
Also,
is "FOMO?" already ansered: Fear Of Missing Out
-
@boomzilla But in this case, only two of those matter: Accessability and device/infrastructure. Which it sounds like are touched on in the article, which sounds good.
-
@remi It sounds like the article does have at least some of that leaning to it, so picking up on it is fair. It just doesn't seem important, because the general point of the article stands fine without it, which even @xaade acknowledged.
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@boomzilla But in this case, only two of those matter: Accessability and device/infrastructure. Which it sounds like are touched on in the article, which sounds good.
Yes. I was just compelled by blakey's sig to point out the obvious to him.
-
@magus It does have some of that, but that's definitely far from being the core argument, or even a serious argument. And that's not the case of everyone, but some posters here have apparently only seen that aspect.
Either they're mischievously deliberately missing the point, which means it should be in the garage, or they really cannot see, understand and discuss valid technical points because of the colour of the article and, well, that should also be in the garage.
Toby Fair, it seems the discussion on TFA is petering out anyway, so moving stuff isn't actually really needed.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
The point she introduced patriarchy was where she said that men weren't allowed to feel empathy. At which point I said that I don't know where they get this stuff from, because it's a harmful stereotype to pretend that all of society thinks that way.
Why do you keep grouping people into nameless "they"s. How about treating people are individuals who all have their own thoughts and opinions?
Who do you believe this "they" is exactly?
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Yeah. Sure. A community forum wasn't hallway tested. See, this is what frustrates me. It's always SOMEONE ELSE's responsibility. Never the person bringing up the issue or complaining that society should change.
Well it wasn't really tested at all, but the set of "not tested at all" also includes "not usability tested" so.
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Look, I told you what I pulled out of the article.
I told you I agree with the basic premise.
I told you I agree with the key points.
I just disagree with how those points are being made.
I even gave you an example of a constructive way of making the points that would have a much higher likelihood of changing people's minds.
So, no, this is not a good article. It's a bad article that makes a few good points and then poorly backs those points up.Fair enough.
-
@remi said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Either they're mischievously deliberately missing the point, which means it should be in the garage, or they really cannot see, understand and discuss valid technical points because of the colour of the article and, well, that should also be in the garage.
But lucas1 posts that way regardless of the thread or location.
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
From my perspective, you do the same thing when you run all of those things together as he does when he runs all diversity things together.
What things are "all those things"?
You mean "social justice warrior men's right gamergate"? Yeah I lumped them together because they're all equally irrelevant to the article we're commenting on. I understand that they are different things, I'm trying to type clever words and be clever, my mistake.
-
@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.
-
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Why do you keep grouping people into nameless "they"s.
The they that groups people into a labeled "patriarchy" ?
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
How about treating people are individuals who all have their own thoughts and opinions?
Wouldn't it be great.
@blakeyrat said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Fair enough.
:)
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
But lucas1 posts that way regardless of the thread or location.
True, and that doesn't make it less rude. But he wasn't the only one.
@blakeyrat I'm no mod, so I'm not going to move anything, and I don't really think that is needed anyway. I'm just saying that some dicks, well, acted like dicks.
And derailing "your" thread, which I guess makes me a dick as well.
-
@xaade said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Look, I told you what I pulled out of the article.
I told you I agree with the basic premise.
I told you I agree with the key points.
I just disagree with how those points are being made.
I even gave you an example of a constructive way of making the points that would have a much higher likelihood of changing people's minds.
So, no, this is not a good article. It's a bad article that makes a few good points and then poorly backs those points up.That was my basic take from the article. It is accusatory and inflammatory and stinks of SJWism. Like this part:
We had to learn about diversity of people and devices. We were forced to. Maybe not for the right reasons - we did it because we didn’t want to miss out on the market opportunity that mobile devices represented - but certainly with the right effect: we didn’t want to exclude people!
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.
https://sonniesedge.co.uk/posts/progressive-enhancement
That is literally an argument that this person attempted to make. They have fallen off the left-wing. No wonder blakey likes them.
-
@pie_flavor 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:
No; diversity is diversity. This swap is entirely in your own head.
You have now convinced me that you are ranting just to be a contrarian and not because you have any actual rationality to back it up with.
YMBNH, that is his general MO.
-
@remi said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@magus It does have some of that, but that's definitely far from being the core argument, or even a serious argument. And that's not the case of everyone, but some posters here have apparently only seen that aspect.
Either they're mischievously deliberately missing the point, which means it should be in the garage, or they really cannot see, understand and discuss valid technical points because of the colour of the article and, well, that should also be in the garage.Or the article starts off with unnecessary nonsense that colors how people interpret the rest of it. To be fair, I ended up reading the entire article and what xhe says later is true and relevant, the color of the article and how the argument is framed is offputting and counter to an attempt to persuade people. In fact, it does not want to persuade, it wants to guilt people in to doing "the right thing".
-
@polygeekery Dude, calm down.
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery Dude, calm down.
-
The interesting thing to me is that even the people who felt the need to point out all the "Marxist" things in the article read it and thought it had good points, while people who saw them saying that didn't read their posts.
-
Also, to be fair, this is one part of it I massively agreed with:
Navigate with your keyboard
Similarly, start to navigate only by keyboard. I bet half of you reading this can already do this with Vim or Emacs. Using the tab and return key is an order of magnitude easier.
You will be amazed at how much better keyboard accessibility can be done when you’re actually using a keyboard every day yourself.
One thing that supremely annoys me is when I am inputting information on a web form and using the tab key to advance through the input fields and something stupid happens in the navigation. Recently I ran in to one that was a sequence of fields that were in a two wide matrix and each set of fields on the same horizontal line were related but tab navigation sent you straight down until the end when it would return to the top right box. Which made tab navigation sort of useless.
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:
n succinct example I saw recently was an American chap trying to use an airline website while holidaying in SE Asia. His flight had been cancelled and he were trying to rebook. However, due to terrible internet connectivity in his location the site just wasn’t loading - it was trying to pull down huge amounts of images and JS that were simply not happening on that connection.
Seems to me like exactly the symptoms you would see if a site were down or your internet connection was failing. If xhe had said that it would attempt to load and then stall or whatever, then maybe.
Their point, while correct that a site should work without JS and all the other flashy whizbangery, is moo because most people do not know that is an option and if they did would not know how to do it. This is not a level of technical literacy that most people have.
And yes, progressive enhancement could, if implemented correctly, could/would fix that so they would not have to. But that is not what xhe said.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Their point, while correct that a site should work without JS and all the other flashy whizbangery, is moo
-
@heterodox yep.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery Dude, calm down.
Heh...calmer than someone.
-
@boomzilla said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
Heh...calmer than someone.
Yes. Someone. Someone who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with me and likes to downvote all of my jokes.
-
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery
Dude, calm downshut up, libertarian Wesley .
-
@jaloopa said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@magus said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@polygeekery
Dude, calm downshut up, libertarian Wesley .That's an oxymoron.
-
God. Xer Twitter is just awful.
Code is political.
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.
Everything you write into an editor has political impact.
No it isn't. It may have a political impact if it is in that area, but most things written in to an editor have zero political impact. When you are serializing data for some domain specific LOB it is not political. Giving it a cursory thought I fail to see how even 1% of what most of us write in to an editor has political impact. Over the weekend I wrote a new set of graphs and reports for how clients have taken up space on our servers for a new feature we are about to roll out. Political impact == 0.
This is the sort of thing that people say when they are the type that installs plugins to point out possibly problematic words used in their code. The type of person who goes around GitHub looking for references to master/slave.
The more you say it isn't political, the more likely that it is.
No.
-
@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."
-
@polygeekery I was going to say, does this mean that when I worked for my state's government for 8 years that I wrote Democrat code for my first two years in office, then Republican code for the next six when control of the government changed?
-
@powerlord yes, and you should commit Sudoku for those six years.
-
Related accessibility tip:
Hand tremors and the giant-button-problem | Axess Lab
In this article we’ll examine an overlooked accessibility problem that mainly affects users with hand tremors. It’s in almost every interface out there, but barely…
-
@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.
-
@lorne-kates Evidently, though, you're not tired of yourself doing it.
-
@polygeekery said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
What normal user would even think to disable JS and images? None. Not a single one.
- someone tries to use the site before the js loads. js is effectively disabled
- 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.
- The normal user followed the ever-growing advice of "run a fucking adblock stack with a privacy manager". A piece of js is blocked. That causes a different piece of js to break because, like, the js is tightly coupled with that tracking js. Like rather than "if(googleTagMangment exists) doGoogleStuff()" they just call "doGoogleStuff()" and BOOM it explodes. Your js is effectively disabled.
- Someone uses any number of "offline" functions, and keeps the images and js from loading.
The attitude of "none, not a single one" falls into the "no one who is X uses my site, because my site excludes X".
-
@pie_flavor said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
@lorne-kates Evidently, though, you're not tired of yourself doing it.
I'm also not tired of torpedoing your mom. With my penis.
Filed under: Torpedo seamen
-
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
someone tries to use the site before the js loads. js is effectively disabled
So what? From the average idiot user perspective how does that matter?
@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.
The normal user followed the ever-growing advice of "run a fucking adblock stack with a privacy manager". A piece of js is blocked. That causes a different piece of js to break because, like, the js is tightly coupled with that tracking js. Like rather than "if(googleTagMangment exists) doGoogleStuff()" they just call "doGoogleStuff()" and BOOM it explodes. Your js is effectively disabled.
Someone uses any number of "offline" functions, and keeps the images and js from loading.None of that pertains to what this idiot said. Read the article.
I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that the person who wrote this article has not thought through their actions because they are a front end web dev and they write it from the perspective that everyone is.
@lorne-kates said in Good article - Dear Developers, the Web Isn't About You:
The attitude of "none, not a single one" falls into the "no one who is X uses my site, because my site excludes X".
We have an internal self-developed site that does basically nothing outlined in this article or any of your many rants. I bring this up for no other reason than to annoy 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.
You tend to torpedo your own threads.
x.com
