361–370 of 383 posts
Its mostly the KPIs. They just follow the A/B test that says people spend more time on the site without asking why the people spend more time on the site, when the answer is that the people are extremely frustrated.
Unregulated winner take all effects. Too many acquisitions - not enough competition. Giant companies providing market leading services at 3+ layers, increasing startup costs, enabling anti competitive behaviour. However I believe the true reason is geopolitical. The entire digital market is simply the best espionage system. If the US govt had a better way to dominate other countries, they would use it instead, and th…
Am I understanding correctly that you think that, for example, ‘sign up for our newsletter!’ modals exist to allow the US government to get more data on people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> The other party also has to make an effort not to be boring, and that effort is rarely made either. Would you please elaborate what you mean by this? I am familiar with how conversations work or at least how they used to... This looking at your phone and tuning out of a conversation seems to be somethin new and lacking as you said, manners.
It's just that demanding someone's attention without expending the effort to be interesting to them is quite rude as well. If someone's constantly on their phone while you're speaking to them, your conversation is clearly not very interesting to them so you should do better. I find demanding someone's attention more rude than not giving attention that's requested. Someone's attention is theirs to give, not something…
I agree no one wants to listen to someone drone on and on, or brag about themselves but that is not what was going on in this specific case.
The truth is it was only a lunch and now that I know how going to lunch with these guys works, I just wont bother inviting them again. I just needed to vent a bit I suppose, and you are correct it would be rude to make my opinion of their conduct known to them and would have come across as a demand for their attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very true, it reminds me of when Chip Wilson said LuLuLemon yoga pants are not meant for fat girls! https://dietsinreview.com/diet_column/11/no-fat-girls-allowe...
Please explain why you think a company should provide goods for people outside their target market? Is market segmentation frowned upon these days?
I am trying to be more positive and feel it is important to remember every comment on a forum is also not an invitation to an argument.
1. For a lot of companies that have sites running the site is not their primary business. E.g. bank's business is not their site. Surely, their customers (maybe majority of them even) use the site, but that's not what they came to the bank for, that's something they are forced to endure to get their loan, access to their money, their credit card account, etc. Consequently, no motivation to improve UX.
2. A lot of companies that do run their business via the site, they are big enough so that losing any particular customer is below rounding error for them. If you're mad at Amazon for scammy products, what you're going to do, use... what exactly? Not many sites have as wide catalog as Amazon, and can seriously threaten to take their customers. Consequently, no incentive to improve. Also, automatic problem handling tool cost much less than live support (that would demand benefits, complain about working conditions, and generally cause headache) - and if that costs 1% of customers wrongly banned, the cost is acceptable. In any case, not a lot of people would abandon Amazon because there's 1% chance they'd be banned by mistake - and in fact, nobody even knows how big the chance is anyway.
3. A lot of seemingly independent sites are actually owned by the same company (travel industry is notorious for that). So, if you don't like the UX on the site A, and take your business to the site B, you're didn't take your business anywhere in reality, you're just moved to the next isle at the same store. Same consequences.
4. Scammers are much more motivated to scam than services are motivated to fight them. If a scammer scams Google, they get $$$BIG BUCKS$$$ (or at least make a living). If Google catches a scammer, practically nothing changes in anybody's bottom line. Consequently, you get scammy search results.
5. Not changing anything and just keeping everything worked as it worked before rarely gets people promoted. Reworking the whole site and successfully implementing a buzzword technology and completing a project with 100 people involved in time and under budget - just might. Consequently, unnecessary redesigns all around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's consider a basic example: How can you justify not using Microsoft Office? Yes LibreOffice is there and works 95% of the time, but the remaining 5% are not completely useless parts of the software. It's same for most of the user-hostile software. Alternatives are not as intuitive, easy to use, or easy to find. Also, free software is not guaranteed to be sustained or be in front of the pack. I use Linux, and free…
How many people use that "remaining 5%"? Most people I know still use spacebar to right aline the date in a word document.
We don't handle these files everyday, but it's a necessity. If the data inside a file can be transported with something FOSS, it's already carried with that software.
So, in my case, at least; I'd rather do my research and create more GPL software rather than trying to convince established companies to switch to LibreOffice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in Mumbai and Berlin. I did not need my smartphone to pay, but to display my vaccination certificate which is required at most places and to scan the menu which these days is replaced with a QR code placed on the table
Each time I got jabbed, they gave me a little cardboard "certificate" the size of a credit card. I carry them in my wallet, but I've never had to produce them anywhere. Perhaps I'm going to the wrong places.
Unregulated winner take all effects. Too many acquisitions - not enough competition. Giant companies providing market leading services at 3+ layers, increasing startup costs, enabling anti competitive behaviour. However I believe the true reason is geopolitical. The entire digital market is simply the best espionage system. If the US govt had a better way to dominate other countries, they would use it instead, and th…
> Dark patterns in digital services are not just about greed. They give the US government greater power which translates to increased protection of its citizens. What?