Live data from Hacker News

98% isn't much

whynothugo.nl

161–170 of 367 posts

Re: 98% isn't much

#161

Alternatively, 98% is plenty . If your business plan requires you to capitalize on more than 98% of the market, it's already a failure. It'll never happen. As always, it's an "it depends" situation. If your userbase is largely luddites, then maybe you need to support 10+ year old browsers that can't be updated. Otherwise, you can probably just worry about people who are using computers new enough to actually update t…

Most managers I've had preached the "80/20" rule, so 80% was good enough.

Re: 98% isn't much

#162
The biggest thing missing from this analysis is "is there a business case for supporting those 2% of users?". (Maybe, maybe not.)

The second biggest thing is progressive enhancement. The author picked a CSS feature (nesting) that is basically all-or-nothing: the site will basically be entirely broken for those 2% if you swap Sass for native nesting. Most features aren't like that; maybe the site won't look pixel-perfect on old browsers, or one bit of functionality won't work, but by and large it will still be functional. In those cases, I think it's a much easier decision in terms of where to draw the cutoff.

Re: 98% isn't much

#164
post #58

While I agree with the general sentiment, the problem here isn't developers not being familiar with statistics, it's the simple fact all of this is profit driven most of the time. I tried to purchase tickets for an event last week. I had to go through Ticketmaster as it was the only official way. They forced me to verify my account using a phone number, but whoever they were using for messages wasn't able to deliver…

Infrastructure should not be (purely) profit driven. To improve profits for train operators, the simple option is to cut lines serving small and rural communities. The economics are much worse than serving large cities. Same for cell coverage and broadband internet. Most profitable is to just not cover a few percent of the population. There is a point where technology becomes foundational for participating in society…

Yes, we need to update what is considered essential infrastructure in the digital age.

Re: 98% isn't much

#165
Can you imagine a venue refusing entry to former clients 2% of the time just because they’ve “improved their experience”?

Sure, it's called a 'dress code'.

Re: 98% isn't much

#166
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure should not be (purely) profit driven. To improve profits for train operators, the simple option is to cut lines serving small and rural communities. The economics are much worse than serving large cities. Same for cell coverage and broadband internet. Most profitable is to just not cover a few percent of the population. There is a point where technology becomes foundational for participating in society…

> the simple option is to cut lines serving small and rural communities We don’t see this in practice to though. Three examples: 1. In the airline industry big airlines don’t go everywhere for this reasons but small local airlines fill the gap due to market opportunity. 2. Changes in technology enable big companies to operate more efficiently. See starlink. 3. Big companies know that ubiquity is important for their b…

>In the airline industry big airlines don’t go everywhere for this reasons but small local airlines fill the gap due to market opportunity.

You’re not wrong, but small and rural airports would not be able to maintain even these routes without EAS (essential air services) subsidies

Re: 98% isn't much

#167

The broader point is that percentages can be misleading, and are often because of that. It makes things sound better. But usually, the more accurate thing to do is use odds-notation ("1 in 50" instead of 98%). Percentages have a kind of singularity at the edges, where small numerical changes have massive real effects. Going from a success rate of 98% to 99% doesn't sound like much, but that's failing 1 in 50 vs 1 in…

In many cases, odds are indeed better than probabilities, namely when a small difference at the probability edges indicate a large real difference.

But sometimes small differences at the edges are indeed small, particularly for expected values. Say you win 100 dollars with 98% probability vs with 99.9% probability.

The expected value (probability * dollars) of the latter is only slightly higher than the former ($99.9-$98=$1.90) even though the difference in odds is very large: (0.999/0.001)/(0.98/0.02)≈20.39. So the 99.9% probability is odds 999 to 1, 98% probability is 49 to 1, so the former has more than 20 times higher odds, but the expected amount of money you win is almost the same.

Re: 98% isn't much

#168
The other thing to keep in mind is that if you have a policy of considering 98% to be "close enough", then it only takes 35 of those decisions to remove over half the population. And it'll be exceptionally difficult to work your way back up, because each improvement will be minimal!

(Of course, this assumes that each decision is independent, which, when you're talking about browser support for CSS, is certainly not the case.)

Re: 98% isn't much

#170

One thing I wonder regarding browser market share is always: How is it collected? I assume Firefox users over proportionally use privacy extensions.Thus they overproportionally won't appear on Google Analytics and similar places, which for some statistics reduces the numbers even more than reality.

Also Firefox users are probably "power users" nowadays, which may or may not be relevant for various sites.
Post reply on HN