81–90 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it's because it makes the app look amateurish.
why does a discord full of 15 year olds need to look professional?
I doubt discord would have got influencers and musicians creating communities on it if it looked like xfire
The language here rubs me the wrong way. Everything is stated as being "incredibly harmful" with no explanation beyond > ...directly harms visually impaired individuals due to lack of visual clarity. I am also not sure how "Elements lack unity" is related to the UI causing harm. I don't use discord, so I have no idea how good the UI is. If the UI is bad and hard for the visually impaired to use, there is definitely a…
I use discord, I have a mild color anomaly in my vision, and have had problems reading low-contrast elements in the UI. Discord's update gives us a useful example of a major release that violates some dark mode design best practices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess one person's soft pedaling is another's common decency. But that doesn't get nearly as many clicks or views, or HN comments for that matter. And seriously? "Aggressor"? It's not an attack, for god's sake.
If you need to use Discord to communicate and now you can't, that's kind of a big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Catastrophic harm” is a phrase you came up with. It’s fair to phrase accessibility concerns in terms of harm, because being denied access to something other people can use is a type of harm. “Catastrophic” is very common hyperbole for something you think is highly unfortunate.
> Speaking of 0 evidence, I’d like to stick a [citation needed] on this: > being denied access to something other people can use is a type of harm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're doing is called tone policing and it's not helpful. Would the post have gotten as much attention if the poster had been meek and polite? Probably not.
people are allowed to have opinions on how other people express themselves. where does the policing come in, I don't understand
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment does the best job of explaining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27118267 Writing like this is meant not to persuade, but to incite and coerce using emotion.
The question is, has it really become more common?
Personally, I see it all the time on Twitter, and more broadly online in left-of-center political discussions.
Is "harmful" the best word here? I feel like inaccessible much better describes the issue at hand.
Yeah, I was wondering that, too. UX can cause harm, for example, certain kinds of contrast and lights for folks with epilepsy, but I'm not sure that the complaint here rises to that level. If you can't use something, you could argue that it causes "harm" to your well being or job prospects or something. But I agree that "harmful" should probably stick to more significant, mostly physical effects. But, of course, here…