Live data from Hacker News

Obamacare’s web site is really bad

washingtonpost.com

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#41
I would be interested in seeing their capacity planning. That would tell us how long it'll take to fix up the system.

In the meantime, we (software developers) can help. Data is widely available. I made one info graphic:

http://vida.io/discussion/SuRAGDs7J78HCvoxE

Anyone is interested in building more tools?

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#42

I gotta say I don't really get these articles. What's the point? Triumph in someone else's mistakes? All this negativity is bad for your limbic system. Having your primary emotion driven via rage/anger or even fear is not a health way to live life. Cortosol and all of that, yknow? Now, here in CA, the coveredca.com is actually really good. It does a good job, and it will substantially reduce my healthcare costs A LOT…

I think rather than negativity and "triumph at someone's mistakes", it may be a combination of:

1. They are comparing themselves to a successful commercial product (the iPhone / iPad) which was orders of magnitude more polished and performant when it was released. This is complete rubbish and is going to raise the hackles of people who have worked on and delivered decent product.

2. There are pull requests on their repo three months old that have not been merged. People are fixing problems for them, but these fixes are not being merged -- not even the simple typo fix ones.

3. This site is supposed to be a guide for acquiring something you are legally required to have (or you face a financial penalty). The bar for usability for such a site should be way higher than "redirect to a a phone line every time we get a lot of traffic".

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#43

From my experience, yes the site is really bad, and it's more than just heavy traffic. The sign up screen lists some requirements for the username, but not all of them. My sign up attempt failed several times with a non-descript error message, which I attributed to the heavy traffic, until later I saw the "Forgot your username" page listed more requirements (apparently you can't end a username in a special character,…

> but when I click the link in the email it pulls up a page that says "We could find any account with the information you provided" - yes, with the information I provided from their own link. Have done that three times.

Frequently when I see that sort of thing it's because they're escaping/stripping characters out - often using myemail+tag@gmail.com will result in myemailtag@gmail.com or myemail%2btag@gmail.com and the resulting lookup will fail if it isn't de-escaped correctly.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#44

I gotta say I don't really get these articles. What's the point? Triumph in someone else's mistakes? All this negativity is bad for your limbic system. Having your primary emotion driven via rage/anger or even fear is not a health way to live life. Cortosol and all of that, yknow? Now, here in CA, the coveredca.com is actually really good. It does a good job, and it will substantially reduce my healthcare costs A LOT…

[deleted]

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#45

I gotta say I don't really get these articles. What's the point? Triumph in someone else's mistakes? All this negativity is bad for your limbic system. Having your primary emotion driven via rage/anger or even fear is not a health way to live life. Cortosol and all of that, yknow? Now, here in CA, the coveredca.com is actually really good. It does a good job, and it will substantially reduce my healthcare costs A LOT…

I think rather than negativity and "triumph at someone's mistakes", it may be a combination of: 1. They are comparing themselves to a successful commercial product (the iPhone / iPad) which was orders of magnitude more polished and performant when it was released. This is complete rubbish and is going to raise the hackles of people who have worked on and delivered decent product. 2. There are pull requests on their r…

Also, it's fair for any U.S. citizen to critique the site, since we are paying for it.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think rather than negativity and "triumph at someone's mistakes", it may be a combination of: 1. They are comparing themselves to a successful commercial product (the iPhone / iPad) which was orders of magnitude more polished and performant when it was released. This is complete rubbish and is going to raise the hackles of people who have worked on and delivered decent product. 2. There are pull requests on their r…

Also, it's fair for any U.S. citizen to critique the site, since we are paying for it.

Well, even non-U.S. citizens who work in the U.S. on visas pay for the site through their taxes. In fact, they also pay for Social Security and Medicare without generally being eligible to receive either of those benefits.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#47

From my experience, yes the site is really bad, and it's more than just heavy traffic. The sign up screen lists some requirements for the username, but not all of them. My sign up attempt failed several times with a non-descript error message, which I attributed to the heavy traffic, until later I saw the "Forgot your username" page listed more requirements (apparently you can't end a username in a special character,…

> but when I click the link in the email it pulls up a page that says "We could find any account with the information you provided" - yes, with the information I provided from their own link. Have done that three times. Frequently when I see that sort of thing it's because they're escaping/stripping characters out - often using myemail+tag@gmail.com will result in myemailtag@gmail.com or myemail%2btag@gmail.com and t…

The link has my username, not my email. It contains a period in the middle (again because I was require to used one). I looked up the URI encode for the period and replaced the period in the link in case it wasn't escaped right, but that didn't work for me either.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#48

I gotta say I don't really get these articles. What's the point? Triumph in someone else's mistakes? All this negativity is bad for your limbic system. Having your primary emotion driven via rage/anger or even fear is not a health way to live life. Cortosol and all of that, yknow? Now, here in CA, the coveredca.com is actually really good. It does a good job, and it will substantially reduce my healthcare costs A LOT…

I think rather than negativity and "triumph at someone's mistakes", it may be a combination of: 1. They are comparing themselves to a successful commercial product (the iPhone / iPad) which was orders of magnitude more polished and performant when it was released. This is complete rubbish and is going to raise the hackles of people who have worked on and delivered decent product. 2. There are pull requests on their r…

Re: 3, have you actually used other government sites? Particularly for tax returns, which approximately the same percentage of people have legally been required to file for decades?

Not saying it's great, but when compared to tax returns and particularly other health insurance sites, its usability is downright fantastic.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#49
post #32
post #22

>Choose a username that is 6-74 characters long and must contain a lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these symbols _.@/-." Requiring entropy in the username ? What? I can understand the password, but what site requires you to put a symbol in your username?

I haven't visited the website but > lowercase or capital letter, a number, or one of these symbols _.@/-." says "or" and not "and", so it doesn't actually seem like there's any issue so long as you include a letter. Then the only real restriction is the minimum of six characters.

It doesn't say "and" but the front end JS won't let you proceed without a special char. But if you put the special char at the end it fails without explanation b/c a different page says you can't do that.

In other words, the sign up page text, the sign up page JS validation, the back end database, and the trouble logging in page ALL have different requirements just for the username.

Re: Obamacare’s web site is really bad

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have*. It's must have. Or, must've, but that feels very weird.

The contraction shouldn't feel weird unless all contractions feel weird. The grammticalized "have" in the modal is almost never pronounced the same way as the verb meaning "possess"; it has become a schwa-vee or often even a simple schwa (rendered as musta) in ordinary (not explicitly emphatic) speech. It has really become more of an affix than a separate word, so maybe it is time for the written rendering of the lan…

Are you proposing a common spelling of "musta" ("woulda", etc)?

I only find "must've" weird as it's not a very commonly seen contraction. Much like "mustn't". They're definitely used in speech, but people rarely type them out, which is how you end up with people using "of" when they mean "have" or "'ve".

I don't think I've come across anyone using "must" and "not" in a contractional form. I shudder to think what the "of" crowd would type for "mustn't".

Post reply on HN