341–350 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my confusion is why it's their requirements that need to get met, not say, the readers' requirements.
It's marketing , alright? Users are cattle to be milked, their requirements matter only to the degree it keeps them on the farm, which means not much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying to explain to someone how static sites work vs how WP works, and that the server has to literally recreate the entire page from a bunch of database entries (having first compiled all the PHP files into something the server understands) for every single page request . It's crazy that we ended up with this powering most of the web.
> It's crazy that we ended up with this powering most of the web. What's crazy is your wilful ignorance of _why_ WP is so popular. One important reason is that it allows writers to avoid people like you, who hold them in disdain without even the slightest attempt to understand their needs.
I think I understand why WP is so popular; it optimises for the editing experience and for the vast majority of situations this is fine; building the website is cheaper and quicker, and the audience doesn't really care about a 200ms lag on rendering.
My confusion (and I never described this as anything but confusion, so I don't understand your reference to me hating users) is that in a process where we can do better, and use tech that is more appropriate, faster, etc, there is still a preference for WP. Even when the people involved don't have to deal with it. Is it just familiarity, or control, or what? If we have the chance of optimising for the reader's experience, I would think that that would be a huge plus, but apparently not. This is confusing, and a little annoying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's crazy that we ended up with this powering most of the web. What's crazy is your wilful ignorance of _why_ WP is so popular. One important reason is that it allows writers to avoid people like you, who hold them in disdain without even the slightest attempt to understand their needs.
Please stop with the insulting ad-hominems, it contributes nothing to the discussion and just promotes anger. I think I understand why WP is so popular; it optimises for the editing experience and for the vast majority of situations this is fine; building the website is cheaper and quicker, and the audience doesn't really care about a 200ms lag on rendering. My confusion (and I never described this as anything but co…
If you believe that this was an attack against you rather than the position that you yourself have laid out in these comments, it's time for some self-reflection.
Your commentary drips with disdain for the people you're ostensibly serving and it's as obvious to them as it is here.
Even in this comment, you don't care to examine why some people have a preference for WordPress, because you believe there's a better option. Truly the behaviour of the stereotypical arrogant developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from some once-in-a-blue-moon security breach events, how does better security help a salesperson sell more stuff?
If gross sales is literally the only important metric in software engineering we've already failed. Though on the cost side security breaches can be expensive, as can the endless task of updates and maintenance required for a live server. Live servers can also be a scaling bottleneck, often that isn't too important but it would be for anything that is highly seasonal or has large spikes of use during Black Friday eve…
It literally is the only important metric is commercial software development. Not sure how you could delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
They make choice, because they're the ones working with this daily. Their goal is to put content on display fast. Content varies a lot - often containing for eg. tables, which simply don't work well in markdown or images you need to host somewhere. I spent a lot of time looking and still hasn't found toolchain, that would allow interns with zero technical experience deliver edits, without getting involved in tech det…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, I'm saying they don't need this functionality.
But the editors want. So... I guess you are out of touch with your own clients. Either you actually don't know their needs, or you didn't take the time to sit with them to explain why they shouldn't have that
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
Just use a polished CMS like Sanity and get the best of both worlds
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If gross sales is literally the only important metric in software engineering we've already failed. Though on the cost side security breaches can be expensive, as can the endless task of updates and maintenance required for a live server. Live servers can also be a scaling bottleneck, often that isn't too important but it would be for anything that is highly seasonal or has large spikes of use during Black Friday eve…
> If gross sales is literally the only important metric in software engineering we've already failed. It literally is the only important metric is commercial software development. Not sure how you could delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
I have whole rants about this, based on bitter experience trying to convince marketing people to stop using WP and just use a static site. It comes down to ease of editing. A WP site optimises for the editor. Not the hosting, not the tech folk, not the accountants, and definitely not the reader. The people who edit the site get to say how it's implemented. If you give them the choice (as I have) between a site that r…
> and costs literally nothing to host Costs nothing to host, but then you need to train every user, which demands time, will make productivity go down every time there's a new user. VS wordpress, which any copywriter or marketer already knows how to write on, or will learn in just a few minutes because creating a post there and clicking 'publish' is easy
It's more than that - imagine that marketers want a contact form on such static site, well nice, you can add that easily. But now there is a lot of spam coming through, okay that can be dealt with. Now they want to have multiple, editable forms. And Hubspot integration, and analytics integration, and now one of forms needs to be 2-step, another needs to have dynamic part shown/hidden based on conditions. etc etc All of that is already solved issue in the Wordpress world - one can pick proven and tested solutions from multiple vendors and deliver results.
And that is ONE component, form - sure it can be replaced with some 3rd party embedded widget but that never comes without hidden costs/annoyances. There are multiple components similar to used "form" example