381–390 of 697 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I specifically dislike the "Lessons" section, as it throws all the blame on github and doesn't mention the seemingly obvious advice: "make sure you're not on autopilot when taking potentially dangerous actions, on github or any website". Yes, GitHub probably should show the stars in the warning UI, and hopefully that will prevent some of these mistakes. But GitHub makes it pretty hard to make this mistake already - t…
Yeah, but on the other hand, "don't make mistakes" isn't a meaningful or useful lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
[flagged]
Github did tweet to ask people to support the project, to witch the project starts comparing it to a situation where github restored their own data, as if that was unfair.
The post also seems to wildly overestimate the importance of the project and the effect on github and Microsoft. It also seems to be written just to pressure github into giving the project special treatment.
The post even states: "After all, GitHub has a history of taking controversial actions that go against the spirit of open source and community and then reverting them only based on public outrage."
So the post seems to be made overly dramatic on purpose.
As for the opinion about the UI, I do prefer it as is, if that wasn't clear. There needs to be a balance between usability and protection, and I think github has done a great job. It would of course be nice if it didn't get deleted and instead just stopped sending events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an explicit suggestion right there in the article what else they could do, so you don't even have to guess. Typing in the number of objects that would be deleted in addition to the name is something else. Or, they could just keep all of them in place, but hidden, and "restore" them all automatically if you made it public again. There are lots and lots of things they could do better, if they cared. But parap…
> There was an explicit suggestion right there in the article what else they could do, so you don't even have to guess. I read it, but I disagree. Honestly I don't think it would have prevented this. If you're muscle memorying past warning signs the text on the warning sign isn't going to matter much. My point was purely about UX, obviously there are technical solutions to this problem.
Do you have any concrete evidence for this? A lot of people keep saying this but don't provide anything factual in the way of UX studies, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the nuance in the criticism of GitHub's UI. The issue is not the presence of a roadblock, but that the same roadblock is put up regardless of how "actually" destructive the action to be taken is. The same roadblock should not be used to guard against both benign and severe consequences, else you have no real way of telling what lies on the other side of the roadblock you're plowing through.
I didn't miss it, I just don't agree with it. With the name being different I'd say the roadblock is different, but you might not agree, and that's fine. I really don't care about the number of stars my project has if I'm going to make something private. It's not like most important projects sticks out by a very significant amount of stars. What percentile would? And what percentile of these occurances are on this sc…
Sure, the author should be responsible. Yes, GitHub should have a better UX around this action. But... There is another thing to consider: Is it really necessary that a repo that is accidentally made private and then made public should lose its stars anyway? Is that really what the repo owner or the people who starred the repo even want to happen?
Let's assume that the stars don't go away when the repo is made private. There are a couple of options: - The users can still see all their stars and find the private repo, which makes it not private. - The users can't see all their stars, they can only see their stars for the public repos. There's no way to find or unstar a private repo that you starred while it was public. This would lead to the situation that if y…
I do appreciate they aren’t yelling and complaining about it, however.
I really like this post. While the author clearly feels bad about the fact that they've lost his community and that GitHub didn't restore it (which is honestly what any of us would've felt under similar circumstances), they're also focusing towards the future and using their personal experience as a parable all of us can learn from. Lesson 1 on UI design I think is really important. I often think scary popup boxes ar…
I specifically dislike the "Lessons" section, as it throws all the blame on github and doesn't mention the seemingly obvious advice: "make sure you're not on autopilot when taking potentially dangerous actions, on github or any website". Yes, GitHub probably should show the stars in the warning UI, and hopefully that will prevent some of these mistakes. But GitHub makes it pretty hard to make this mistake already - t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm not sure why the drive-by, off-topic, gratuitous dig at vegans, as if you've decided they're a fair target, even in a comment instructing about kindness. I downvoted and flagged your comment for that. The HN guidelines apply regardless of your subject.
I brought it up because its an easy way to bring a moral rightousness example on hckernews. Perhaps more merit to the idea one should think of how ones word are received without context. To me as a casual reader here its like the space and tab holy war, except actually real. I don't dislike vegans per say as eat 80% vegetarian for health reasons.
Is it presumptuous to assume you are vegan and took offense? If so, could you share some viewpoints on your decision if you are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Lesson 1: I think the general pattern that ought to be followed is to "prefer undo to warnings." Undo is often harder to implement, however it's usually a superior experience.
I agree that undos are pretty nice for when errors are possible, but I think there's a really good reason to put up warnings too. Let's say they accidentally made the repo private, but didn't notice it (unlike what happened here). Although you would be able to undo the change, it may have only kicked in once the news spread around (followed by reputation damage, etc). A well worded warning would prevent that. In a wa…
Undo-instead-of-warning is a great pattern for lower-stakes actions that are easy to undo and cause minimal damage if left done. This allows the few warnings you do show to be recognized as truly important.