Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

98% isn't much

whynothugo.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–367 of 367 posts

Re: 98% isn't much

#361

Post by AlexeyBelov »

ipaddr wrote: post #357
DonnieP wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the results of US elections in the past 30 years, farmers (as represented by rural voters in general) do not vote for candidates who support "collective benefit."

Sure they do they create co-operatives and pool resources together. They created banks, insurance that serve their needs. Farmers aren't some lone wolf. Farmers created universal health care in other countries like Canada. They don't support the left and social politics of pushing trans, gay, racial, feminist policies. They believe in God and Christian values. They work hard and expect others to and don't support a w…

Yes, they've been told to fear "gay policies", whatever that actually means. Judging by the results, it's fair to say they are by and large uneducated -- except in their very narrow domain.

Re: 98% isn't much

#362

Post by Dylan16807 »

anoneng wrote: post #359
drdeca wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know any browsers which don’t support https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ (if you remove the google traffic tracking js that’s iirc tacked on at the end of the page (or maybe I’m thinking of better mfing website (which adds a tiny bit of css)? Idr.)) ? I get that asking a commercial website to be as basic/supported as that website is a big ask. I don’t think the other commenter was saying that such websites shou…

Completely bad faith reply when your example uses zero CSS, no HTML links even, and the only script to distinguish it from a bare static text document is google analytics malware. This isn’t falling back, it is the fallback. Expecting most modern web application to function at that level is for most purposes, simply stupid. Like putting hitching posts in a high rise apartment’s sub-basement parking levels.

Only a couple percent of websites have a significant need to be "modern web applications".

Yes that is the fallback. That doesn't make it a bad example. Your core functionality should work on almost everything even if it's laid out a bit weird and missing niceties.

So: not bad faith and your accusation is unreasonable

Re: 98% isn't much

#363

Post by Dylan16807 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #220
bradleybuda wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very difficult for the average person to use a ten year old browser; in fact I’d offer that the only way to use a ten year old browser is to be an expert and do so intentionally.

Respectfully, you may live in a bubble of fairly tech-savvy folks. Most of my extended family run 10+ year old laptops as their daily drivers. Their phones are often on the second or third battery replacement. They don't install updates very often (if at all). For the most part they are still more proficient with tech than many of their peers.

> They don't install updates very often (if at all).

The average person with zero tech savvy has their browser updating itself regularly with no input from the user. Are they escaping that?

Re: 98% isn't much

#364

Post by collinmanderson »

criddell wrote: post #248
collinmanderson wrote: post #118

Part of the problem is The US Government (and UK Government) use the "2% rule" on their websites and only officially support 98%. I mentioned 3 years ago that Firefox at 2.2% is dangerously close the being unsupported on government websites, and at this point it's now at 1.9%. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36776603 https://analytics.usa.gov/ says "There were 1.66 billion sessions in the last 30 days." - so 2%…

If they drop support of Firefox, does that mean they would actively block Firefox?

No, they would just ignore Firefox and not test against it, and might start to use chrome/safari-only features.

Re: 98% isn't much

#365

Post by thephyber »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #322
thephyber wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reply doesn’t apply to the article, at least not the way you think it does. (1) The article is talking about how dissatisfying 2% of your market is not a small issue. And the 2% of the market the website dissatisfies are unable to express the feedback reliably. You are talking about cooking in the same room/ship as your customer, which has a fast and reliable feedback cycle. Your scenario has the advantage of be…

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I would make the argument that people would have to weigh the cost of being accessible to the last 2% vs the cost of losing the last 2%. Anyone who delivers mail to rural farmers 100 years ago would lose money. There are 3 options. 1. If farmers want mail, they can pay the extra costs. 2. Force, by law, mail carriers to deliver at a loss to farmers. 3. Rural Free Delivery, the gove…

I agree to the extent that this is about tradeoffs, hence my last paragraph about “moving the slider”.

USPS makes people who live too far off their normal routes (and presumably the homeless) use PO Boxes to receive their deliveries. That seems equivalent to the website owner using “graceful degradation” for those website features that 2% of browser users can’t use. The article is about website owners who don’t know or bother to use graceful degradation.

Yes, obviously each website owner has to make their own choices about cost/benefit. Except in practice, each product manager doesn’t actually know the cost or benefit of each feature they choose to use which doesn’t have 100% browser compatibility. It’s worth the occasional discussion to highlight these issues, hence the article.

Re: 98% isn't much

#366

Post by thephyber »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #322
thephyber wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reply doesn’t apply to the article, at least not the way you think it does. (1) The article is talking about how dissatisfying 2% of your market is not a small issue. And the 2% of the market the website dissatisfies are unable to express the feedback reliably. You are talking about cooking in the same room/ship as your customer, which has a fast and reliable feedback cycle. Your scenario has the advantage of be…

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I would make the argument that people would have to weigh the cost of being accessible to the last 2% vs the cost of losing the last 2%. Anyone who delivers mail to rural farmers 100 years ago would lose money. There are 3 options. 1. If farmers want mail, they can pay the extra costs. 2. Force, by law, mail carriers to deliver at a loss to farmers. 3. Rural Free Delivery, the gove…

Also, FWIW I couldn’t get delivery to my residence when I lived in a ski resort town. I was forced to use a PO Box, which put the burden of the last mile on the user and took that burden off of the postal service. I’m guessing lots of farmers who don’t live on main roads/routes have to similarly use PO Boxes.

Re: 98% isn't much

#367

Post by faidit »

bonzini wrote: post #298
dataviz1000 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment very much makes my point.

Maybe, or maybe there is no yacht and no 2 star restaurant. Since your profile doesn't have any personal info (which is certainly your right, mind) I have only one data point and it tilts towards the latter.

We know from email leaks that billionaires' spelling ability is worse than Roblox players. Don't see why their chef would need to have perfect spelling
Post reply on HN