4 ms·

disagree with the premise of the article. performance is a technical issue, not a moral or ethical one. the experience that is derived out of poor performance

by kmlx 7y ago

disagree with the premise of the article. performance is a technical issue, not a moral or ethical one. the experience that is derived out of poor performance might be classified as a moral/ethical issue (emphasis on might - a lot of apps use 100% of cpu, but your experience isn't affected, so it doesn't matter - in other cases your experience is affected so it matters), but poor performance by itself i think not. i might be wrong on this, but i didn't find the article compelling enough to change my mind. any other opinions that might change my mind?

KaiserPro 7y ago
The ethics come from exclusion. If a reasonable device(ie cheap & modern) is unable to load said website, then they are stopped from using that site. If you are "poor" to use a term, then it might be that your phone is your only way of interacting with said service. (libraries and other places are not an option due to cost of getting there, or lack of time.) You are effectively saying that you must be this rich to use our stuff. Now, if you're bently, rolex or similar thats basically your whole way of life. But if you're a utility that provides a monopoly, then its morally dubious. Especially as things like paying bills over the phone, or by post incurs an extra cost.
- kmlx 7y ago
  my argument is that performance doesn't matter if user experience isn't affected. if it is, then sure, performance becomes a moral issue. but if there is no effect, then poor performance simply becomes a technical issue.
  - kdmccormick 7y ago
    Sure, but the entire article is about how experience is widely being affected by poor performance. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make outside of pedantics.
    - kmlx 7y ago
      poor performance is not a pre-requisite of bad experience. in reality it's a combination of UI & UX that contributes the most to bad experiences. not poor performance. so don't focus on poor performance when there is no effect. and even when there is a marginal effect, UI & UX matter a lot more and could even negate the poor performance aspect. so my point: UI&UX > performance. almost every single time. all of this is based on various analysis i have done for a whole slew of clients dating back to 10 years ago.
  - KaiserPro 7y ago
    _The_ tangible example put forward is that it takes 60 seconds to render a page, and that phone is only a year old. If you wish to argue the semantics, rather than the subject of the matter, I'll take that as your tacit agreement that if you can't use a website, that's generally bad.

by kmlx 7y ago

KaiserPro 7y ago

The ethics come from exclusion. If a reasonable device(ie cheap & modern) is unable to load said website, then they are stopped from using that site. If you are "poor" to use a term, then it might be that your phone is your only way of interacting with said service. (libraries and other places are not an option due to cost of getting there, or lack of time.) You are effectively saying that you must be this rich to use our stuff. Now, if you're bently, rolex or similar thats basically your whole way of life. But if you're a utility that provides a monopoly, then its morally dubious. Especially as things like paying bills over the phone, or by post incurs an extra cost.

kmlx 7y ago
my argument is that performance doesn't matter if user experience isn't affected. if it is, then sure, performance becomes a moral issue. but if there is no effect, then poor performance simply becomes a technical issue.
- kdmccormick 7y ago
  Sure, but the entire article is about how experience is widely being affected by poor performance. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make outside of pedantics.
  - kmlx 7y ago
    poor performance is not a pre-requisite of bad experience. in reality it's a combination of UI & UX that contributes the most to bad experiences. not poor performance. so don't focus on poor performance when there is no effect. and even when there is a marginal effect, UI & UX matter a lot more and could even negate the poor performance aspect. so my point: UI&UX > performance. almost every single time. all of this is based on various analysis i have done for a whole slew of clients dating back to 10 years ago.
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  _The_ tangible example put forward is that it takes 60 seconds to render a page, and that phone is only a year old. If you wish to argue the semantics, rather than the subject of the matter, I'll take that as your tacit agreement that if you can't use a website, that's generally bad.