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

The new Digg

digg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: The new Digg

#191

Post by baby »

brigade wrote: post #185
eps wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catering to NoScript users is dead simple - show them a broken website and they will whitelist it. Seriously though, NoScript user base is - and let me really blunt about it - a vocal minority with a bloated sense of entitlement. Catering to them makes no practical sense. There are obviously edge cases, but the best option is to put up a note that JS is required. If Digg doesn't have it, they should add it, but beyon…

I see it the opposite - website designers have decided that they are entitled to decide what my keys and mouse clicks do, among other immensely annoying things. In short, no you are not. Get over yourselves.

I bet you're less than 1% of digg's traffic and you just have to disable noscript to be able to browse it. It's not like you're stuck on IE because of your job.

Re: The new Digg

#192

Post by brigade »

baby wrote: post #191
brigade wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it the opposite - website designers have decided that they are entitled to decide what my keys and mouse clicks do, among other immensely annoying things. In short, no you are not. Get over yourselves.

I bet you're less than 1% of digg's traffic and you just have to disable noscript to be able to browse it. It's not like you're stuck on IE because of your job.

What does IE have anything to do with this?

I was pointing out that from my perspective, the entitlement of web developers has gotten so out of control that disabling JavaScript is the best way of making the general web tolerable to browse.

Re: The new Digg

#193

Post by moheeb »

baby wrote: post #191
brigade wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it the opposite - website designers have decided that they are entitled to decide what my keys and mouse clicks do, among other immensely annoying things. In short, no you are not. Get over yourselves.

I bet you're less than 1% of digg's traffic and you just have to disable noscript to be able to browse it. It's not like you're stuck on IE because of your job.

I highly doubt that brigade is 1% of Digg's traffic.

Re: The new Digg

#194

Post by freehunter »

jamesbritt wrote: post #186
freehunter wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with NoScript is that it intentionally breaks the intended functionality of a website. I just went into the Firefox element inspector and deleted the code for the list of links on the HN homepage. Now they're gone! How dare PG not cater to my will to randomly disable parts of the website? You're free to browse the web with parts of it turned off. But you should expect that parts of it might not work, and…

You're free to browse the web with parts of it turned off. But you should expect that parts of it might not work, and if they don't work it should be immediately obvious why. Yes, it should be immediately obvious, but often it isn't, and that's my biggest complaint with sites that rely on scripting for basic behavior. Too many times I've filled in a form, hit the Submit button, only to find that proper form submissio…

Your final note is accurate, yes. But honestly, why should a web developer have to account for your niche-case decisions? Javascript is a perfectly valid language, and it's perfectly valid to assume that Javascript works in a browser since... it does. Normally. Why should I or anyone else have to add code specifically to tell users of NoScript that they need to be reasonable? You don't have to tell users of Mosaic that they need to upgrade to a browser made in the last 15 years. It's pretty obvious at this point.

I use AdBlock and Ghostery to disable ads and Facebook buttons. But when I get to a sign in page and there's no links, I know that it's a Facebook login button. When I watch a video on Hulu and it doesn't load, I know that AdBlock is preventing me from seeing that show. But I don't go on forums and complain that developers should cater to me breaking their websites. I say to myself "oh hey, I've made a choice that broke this site. Let me take 5 seconds to fix it myself."

"Your site doesn't work with NoScript" means the same thing to me as "they don't speak German at the Chicago McDonald's". I mean, that sucks for you, but honestly do you ever step back and wonder why that is?

Re: The new Digg

#195

Post by freehunter »

brigade wrote: post #192
baby wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet you're less than 1% of digg's traffic and you just have to disable noscript to be able to browse it. It's not like you're stuck on IE because of your job.

What does IE have anything to do with this? I was pointing out that from my perspective, the entitlement of web developers has gotten so out of control that disabling JavaScript is the best way of making the general web tolerable to browse.

IE has to be specifically coded for because it doesn't support modern web design fundamentals. NoScript users have to be specifically coded for because of the same reason.

How often do you run into a website with Javascript that breaks your experience? Would it not be better to have a blacklist than a whitelist?

Re: The new Digg

#196

Post by 385668 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #147
mistercow wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible The thing is, it's not your goal to cater to as many users as possible. It's your goal to optimize your ROI on development time. The reason we have to have laws about accessibility is that your average fast food place knows that wheelchair-bound hamburger sales will never make back the cost of constructing a wheelchair ramp. The economics of the situation wo…

Indeed, I think your accessibility argument is spot-on. The same issues apply for making websites accessible. Thankfully, more often than not, it behooves a site to follow accessibility, because it falls in line with semantic web design, which in turn plays better with Google. Google search, in a way, is the regulatory body to keep sites semantic and accessible.

That's true, and at some point, I assume they'll make the site play well with noscript, but they've written the new version of the site from the ground up in six weeks with ten people. I'll give them some time to get things right.

Re: The new Digg

#197

Post by iand »

johnbellone wrote: post #86
iand wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be fair: this is a 6 week old project to reconstruct Digg from scratch. In another 6 weeks most of these HTML problems will be gone. Also, I'm pretty sure they will figure out how to rescue those 14M 404s

That's not the point. Why rush the release when you know that historically Digg had problems with losing people because they severely botched a redesign? Didn't Digg at one point purge their comments and there was a huge uproar? The new management shouldn't have went online without the migrated data, or at the very least, the user profiles.

They went with a minimally viable release and already have tons of feedback that, if they listen to it, will make Digg a great service again.

Re: The new Digg

#199

Post by eps »

brigade wrote: post #185
eps wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catering to NoScript users is dead simple - show them a broken website and they will whitelist it. Seriously though, NoScript user base is - and let me really blunt about it - a vocal minority with a bloated sense of entitlement. Catering to them makes no practical sense. There are obviously edge cases, but the best option is to put up a note that JS is required. If Digg doesn't have it, they should add it, but beyon…

I see it the opposite - website designers have decided that they are entitled to decide what my keys and mouse clicks do, among other immensely annoying things. In short, no you are not. Get over yourselves.

Well, there you go - a sense of entitlement. You are visiting other people's virtual property and yet you have a nerve to demand how they should be serving you their content. Do you not realize how ridiculous it sounds?

Re: The new Digg

#200

Post by eps »

brigade wrote: post #185
eps wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catering to NoScript users is dead simple - show them a broken website and they will whitelist it. Seriously though, NoScript user base is - and let me really blunt about it - a vocal minority with a bloated sense of entitlement. Catering to them makes no practical sense. There are obviously edge cases, but the best option is to put up a note that JS is required. If Digg doesn't have it, they should add it, but beyon…

I see it the opposite - website designers have decided that they are entitled to decide what my keys and mouse clicks do, among other immensely annoying things. In short, no you are not. Get over yourselves.

Well, there you go - a sense of entitlement. You are visiting other people's virtual property and yet you have a nerve to demand how they should be serving you their content. Do you not realize how ridiculous it looks?
Post reply on HN