Delicious irony: http://i.imgur.com/1NS9s7L.png
I Don't Want Your Fucking App
211–220 of 270 posts
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#212How about we drop the prudishness, and discuss the points raised by the article? Seriously, what's with all the language moralising? This guys is totally free to make his points colourfully and passionately however he wants to. If it upsets you so much (it really shouldn't) then don't read it. His word choices are not hate speech or discriminatory so the fact that they may offend your sensibilities has precisely zero…
(I'm the creator of the site) I've noticed - and I may be wrong - that all the folk in the UK are unfazed by the swearing and have reacted quite positively either in person or on Twitter. The Americans, by contrast, seem a lot more upset about the swearing. I wonder why that is? Either way, I do wonder if some sections of the tech community are to... corporate in their approach to language. Look at the fuss when Linu…
> that all the folk in the UK are unfazed by the swearing and have reacted quite positively either in person or on Twitter.
I'm English. I'm unfazed by it. But it's not a good example of lots of swearing. It's just lots of "fucks" and "fucking" scattered through the text. There doesn't appear to be much rhythm or flow to it.
It's not funny. It's not effective at conveying anger. It's just poor writing. That's fine, not everyone is a great writer, but don't try to defend shitty writing with some kind of "Anyone English gets it and it's only you uptight Yanks who don't like it".
You're no Malcom fucking Tucker.
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#213They exist because they work - i can imagine lots of novice users clicking OK perhaps because they think its the only way to continue.
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because word wrap and fluid layout are design decisions made by web developers and designers, NOT the web browser. Fluid layouts work just fine on iOS and wrap as expected. IMO the decision by Apple to scale a site's layout proportionally without breaking the intended layout is a valid one.
And with this decision you break 99% of the web on mobile devices. It's a tiny thing to override this CSS property and makes mobile browsing of desktop sites so more convenient -- there's is no difference between Chrome on a mobile device and Chrome on desktops in terms of speed and usability of sites. In contrast, using the web browser on iOS is a real pain considering that Apple forbids to install any other renderi…
> And with this decision you break 99% of the web on mobile devices.
There's nothing broken about it. You can zoom in just fine; you just have to scroll back and forth, much like if you had a desktop browser opened to a tiny size.
What you describe is "broken" is actually conforming to HTML and CSS spec; Android is the one that's technically "broken". Internet Explorer had a knack for creating "features" that broke spec, too, and look how that turned out.
> Finally, it's a much better solution for visually impaired people since you can scale the fonts quickly as big as you want and the text just reflows.
Again, accessibility has always been the responsibility of the the web designer and developer. Do you also expect web browsers to analyze images and generate missing alt text? (That would actually be pretty cool, but again, there shouldn't be an expectation for it).
I understand why Android has chosen to include those features, but by doing that, they're potentially breaking the UX that the web designers expect the user to have.
It really has nothing to do with commercial interests and everything to do with separating the responsibilities of the web browser and the web developer.
EDIT: I'm not saying that Android is wrong for including that functionality, but to say that people should be up-in-arms at Apple for not including spec-breaking functionality is a bit ridiculous.
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#215Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#216Oh, hell yeah! I want a mobile-enabled web site on my iPad, not another useless app-wrapper proxy for a web site. Shouldn't the fact that I remember the URL be enough??
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#217I am very surprised that so many people are not complaining about Mobile Safari's missing automatic word wrap feature. This is the number one reason why people want to use apps for anything (because their mobile browser is just broken). With word wrap like you get on Android's browsers most traditional desktop websites are totally sufficient on mobile devices, there's even no need for a mobile web version (HN is the…
Because word wrap and fluid layout are design decisions made by web developers and designers, NOT the web browser. Fluid layouts work just fine on iOS and wrap as expected. IMO the decision by Apple to scale a site's layout proportionally without breaking the intended layout is a valid one.
I think it's a bad decision. In order to read the text, I need to zoom in. But I can only zoom in on a part of the page, so I need to scroll sideways back and forth to read the beginning and end of lines in the same paragraph.
It's a bad decision. I should be able to size and flow the page to fit my display, wrapping it appropriately.
Yes, the designer should a layout that does this for mobile devices anyway. But the phone should also make it possible to sensibly read sites that don't.
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#218for android on dolphin browser you can change the user agent and get around all of this but then the mobile version of the site doesnt load so thats kind of a hassle. i agree that a really good mobile site would work a lot better in most cases.
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#219[deleted]
Re: I Don't Want Your Fucking App
#220[deleted]