6 ms·

Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. We don't care about any of the use cases in your comment. If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser

Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. We don't care about any of the use cases in your comment. If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser, you are a security risk and we don't want our site to work on your browser. Please call our 1-800 number to talk to a representative.

wwweston 7y ago
> We don't care about any of the use cases in your comment Hey, everybody has to make tradeoffs, and it's certainly conceivable that the margins of disability don't matter to you, or that your phone support is your non-visual UA, or even that you don't care about search. That's only half the contents of my comment, though, the rest is about engineering benefits. Perhaps you don't care about those either? > If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser, you are a security risk What? JavaScript fantastically useful, but it's a vulnerability surface, not a security feature. Maybe you meant to say HTTPS/TLS? Because if you meant to use JS as a proxy for TLS support, oh, man, I have some bad news for you. Both about security and about the relative utility of engineering around proxy tests vs engineering around tests for specific feature support. > Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. I'd love to know the name of the company. Don't worry, I won't try to get you in trouble or anything, it's just clear that there's opportunities to rise well above one's competence there.
- hycaria 7y ago
  > it's just clear that there's opportunities to rise well above one's competence there. Isn't that super hostile ? Can't read between the lines there
  - wwweston 7y ago
    Your criticism is at least as apt as mine. OTOH, if someone's going to do a drive-by comment in a discussion where they lean heavily on the authority of a management position at a high-profile company, and then proceed to speak as if they don't understand how the area they interact with intersects with security and haven't thoughtfully engaged with the comment they're responding to, then I'm not really sure it's out of line to suggest that whatever authority they've been given has been questionably allocated.
eitland 7y ago
> Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. That doesn't mean much these days when it comes to ux :-) Edit: so until we know what company you work for we don’t know if you are part of the problem or fighting against the problems. If anything modern ux is an exercise in embracing mystery meat navigation. I recently got an iPad and while I like it a lot it is an exercise in frustration and DDG-ing to find out if something is missing (like select all in mail) or if someone has just come up with another "intuitive" way to hide it: slide in? slide in from the right? pull down on a list that is already on top? Touch the top bar? Long touch? Turn device sideways? I'm almost not joking when I say usability was better in the 90ies: Ever present menus, hover to get tooltips, context menus and documentation.
saagarjha 7y ago
> If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser, you are a security risk and we don't want our site to work on your browser. Sorry, what? Why am I security risk for not wanting to run the arbitrary code that your website sends me? (I browse with JavaScript turned on, FWIW, so this is a hypothetical question for me.)
- adrianN 7y ago
  Some javascript is used to detect bots.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Client-side JavaScript to detect bots seems doomed to fail, unless it's some sort of proof-of-work kind of thing.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      All bot detection is doomed to fail, but you can make it more expensive for the bot authors.
miki123211 7y ago
and this is exactly my problem with Fortune100 companies. Shoving your code down our throats till we hoke, without the possibility to use it the way we want.

wwweston 7y ago

> We don't care about any of the use cases in your comment Hey, everybody has to make tradeoffs, and it's certainly conceivable that the margins of disability don't matter to you, or that your phone support is your non-visual UA, or even that you don't care about search. That's only half the contents of my comment, though, the rest is about engineering benefits. Perhaps you don't care about those either? > If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser, you are a security risk What? JavaScript fantastically useful, but it's a vulnerability surface, not a security feature. Maybe you meant to say HTTPS/TLS? Because if you meant to use JS as a proxy for TLS support, oh, man, I have some bad news for you. Both about security and about the relative utility of engineering around proxy tests vs engineering around tests for specific feature support. > Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. I'd love to know the name of the company. Don't worry, I won't try to get you in trouble or anything, it's just clear that there's opportunities to rise well above one's competence there.

hycaria 7y ago
> it's just clear that there's opportunities to rise well above one's competence there. Isn't that super hostile ? Can't read between the lines there
- wwweston 7y ago
  Your criticism is at least as apt as mine. OTOH, if someone's going to do a drive-by comment in a discussion where they lean heavily on the authority of a management position at a high-profile company, and then proceed to speak as if they don't understand how the area they interact with intersects with security and haven't thoughtfully engaged with the comment they're responding to, then I'm not really sure it's out of line to suggest that whatever authority they've been given has been questionably allocated.

eitland 7y ago

> Ux Engineering manager here for a fortune 100 company. That doesn't mean much these days when it comes to ux :-) Edit: so until we know what company you work for we don’t know if you are part of the problem or fighting against the problems. If anything modern ux is an exercise in embracing mystery meat navigation. I recently got an iPad and while I like it a lot it is an exercise in frustration and DDG-ing to find out if something is missing (like select all in mail) or if someone has just come up with another "intuitive" way to hide it: slide in? slide in from the right? pull down on a list that is already on top? Touch the top bar? Long touch? Turn device sideways? I'm almost not joking when I say usability was better in the 90ies: Ever present menus, hover to get tooltips, context menus and documentation.

saagarjha 7y ago

> If our JavaScript doesn't work in your browser, you are a security risk and we don't want our site to work on your browser. Sorry, what? Why am I security risk for not wanting to run the arbitrary code that your website sends me? (I browse with JavaScript turned on, FWIW, so this is a hypothetical question for me.)

adrianN 7y ago
Some javascript is used to detect bots.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Client-side JavaScript to detect bots seems doomed to fail, unless it's some sort of proof-of-work kind of thing.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    All bot detection is doomed to fail, but you can make it more expensive for the bot authors.

miki123211 7y ago

and this is exactly my problem with Fortune100 companies. Shoving your code down our throats till we hoke, without the possibility to use it the way we want.