4 ms·

I can't imagine that browser button pursuading anyone who doesn't already understand and appreciate RSS to start using it. Anyone tech-savvy enough to see it, a

by corin_ 16y ago

I can't imagine that browser button pursuading anyone who doesn't already understand and appreciate RSS to start using it. Anyone tech-savvy enough to see it, and start googling to find out how to use it properly has certainly already heard of RSS. And on the other side, anyone who does use RSS, and anyone in the future who learns to use it, won't be put off using it by the loss of that button. The worse statement in this article (other than the french man smoking) is: Mozilla’s mistake here is to associate low usage with user dis-interest. Ummm... they're correct. He claims that, just because only 3-7% use it, it must be kept in because "what regular user wouldn’t want this feature!?" Clearly the answer to that question is "93-97% of regular users". Touché?

gergles 16y ago
The argument is that more people would use the feature if the UI were better, and that hiding the feature because "nobody uses it (because it sucks)" is not the same statement as "nobody uses it (because nobody wants it)".
ianl 16y ago
3%-7% that use the button are most likely power users. It would be unwise to disenfranchise them as they are the ones who normally advocate your software to their friends (regular users).
- corin_ 16y ago
  Sure, you could make an argument that 3%-7% is enough people to justify keeping the feature. Or you could make the argument that while it isn't enough, because they are the online non-shopping version of Alpha Consumers, it's worth keeping it to help get the browser promoted. However you cannot argue that it has to be kept because every regular user wants this feature - statistics don't lie, clearly the majority of users don't care.
- lftl 16y ago
  In chrome at least you can install a plugin to add an RSS icon to the URL bar. Easy enough for power users.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    That seems like it's the best option, actually. For power-users, a 3rd-party built extension is more likely to be updated / have the options you want than the button built into every version of the browser.
    - imrehg 16y ago
      Actually, it is a plugin made by Google, so they must know there's a need... https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nlbjncdgjeocebhnmkbbbdekmmmcbfjd https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nlbjncdgjeocebhn...
- sid0 16y ago
  Anyone who is a power user can simply add the icon back.
xenomachina 16y ago
The worst statement in your comment (other than your use of "worse" in place of "worst") is: anyone who does use RSS, and anyone in the future who learns to use it, won't be put off using it by the loss of that button What about those who use RSS and use that button (like myself)? Won't they be "put off" by the loss of the button? I think you miss the author's main point which is that the usage of the button is low not because users don't want that feature but because the UI is crappy all around. Removing the button only makes the UI worse.
- corin_ 16y ago
  Hitting me where it hurts, a spelling mistake, I guess I should start proof-reading my HN comments. What about those who use RSS and use that button (like myself)? Won't they be "put off" by the loss of the button? If you stop using RSS because the button is no longer there, you clearly didn't actually care about RSS in the first place.
  - xenomachina 16y ago
    You're basically saying that it's ok to make any UI worse because users will either put up with it or stop using the feature entirely (which just means that they didn't care about the feature in the first place).
    - corin_ 16y ago
      No, you're confusing two seperate points. 1.) Why is it ok to remove the button - because hardly anybody uses it. 2.) Why does Firefox removing the button not meant that "RSS is dying" - because people who currently use RSS will keep doing so, just without using the button.
      - xenomachina 16y ago
        Your second point is flawed. The button makes using RSS more convenient. Removing it makes it less convenient. Saying people would not be "put off" by making it less convenient is naive at best.
dkarl 16y ago
Your assumption is only true if the user experience stays the same. Some things (like web mail) take off even when the user experience sucks, but other things that people actually want can be held back by poor user experience. For an example that has spanned practically the entire history of the internet, consider online gaming. The first internet gamers (MUDers? my history is weak) were a small population of hardcore geeks, but as the user experiences got better, the number of people playing rose in a kind of slow-motion explosion. When each breakthrough game appeared, it attracted a new crowd of players who until then had not found online game slick and engaging enough. In 1985, 1990, 1995, or 2000 you would not have extrapolated the current percentage of online users playing social games into the future, because it was obvious the experience was going to get better. It was easy to imagine better graphics, sound, responsiveness, and social interaction, and everyone assumed the better experience would attract a broader range of users. With RSS it's not so easy to imagine how the user experience will improve. We're suffering a failure of imagination. We have the use case: Checking for recent updates on a web site is something people do all the time. They even do it on web sites they're visiting for the first time, and it can be really frustrating depending on the organization of the web site. We have the technology to serve this use case: RSS. So the users want the information and the browser can get it. We can't yet imagine an effective way to present the information to the users, but proof by failure of imagination is no proof at all. Personally, I think it's likely that someone will find a graceful way to present RSS information to the user, and RSS will disappear from our sight and from our vocabularies into a heretofore-unenvisaged UI element.

by corin_ 16y ago

gergles 16y ago

The argument is that more people would use the feature if the UI were better, and that hiding the feature because "nobody uses it (because it sucks)" is not the same statement as "nobody uses it (because nobody wants it)".

ianl 16y ago

3%-7% that use the button are most likely power users. It would be unwise to disenfranchise them as they are the ones who normally advocate your software to their friends (regular users).

corin_ 16y ago
Sure, you could make an argument that 3%-7% is enough people to justify keeping the feature. Or you could make the argument that while it isn't enough, because they are the online non-shopping version of Alpha Consumers, it's worth keeping it to help get the browser promoted. However you cannot argue that it has to be kept because every regular user wants this feature - statistics don't lie, clearly the majority of users don't care.
lftl 16y ago
In chrome at least you can install a plugin to add an RSS icon to the URL bar. Easy enough for power users.
- Groxx 16y ago
  That seems like it's the best option, actually. For power-users, a 3rd-party built extension is more likely to be updated / have the options you want than the button built into every version of the browser.
  - imrehg 16y ago
    Actually, it is a plugin made by Google, so they must know there's a need... https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nlbjncdgjeocebhnmkbbbdekmmmcbfjd https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/nlbjncdgjeocebhn...
sid0 16y ago
Anyone who is a power user can simply add the icon back.

xenomachina 16y ago

The worst statement in your comment (other than your use of "worse" in place of "worst") is: anyone who does use RSS, and anyone in the future who learns to use it, won't be put off using it by the loss of that button What about those who use RSS and use that button (like myself)? Won't they be "put off" by the loss of the button? I think you miss the author's main point which is that the usage of the button is low not because users don't want that feature but because the UI is crappy all around. Removing the button only makes the UI worse.

corin_ 16y ago
Hitting me where it hurts, a spelling mistake, I guess I should start proof-reading my HN comments. What about those who use RSS and use that button (like myself)? Won't they be "put off" by the loss of the button? If you stop using RSS because the button is no longer there, you clearly didn't actually care about RSS in the first place.
- xenomachina 16y ago
  You're basically saying that it's ok to make any UI worse because users will either put up with it or stop using the feature entirely (which just means that they didn't care about the feature in the first place).
  - corin_ 16y ago
    No, you're confusing two seperate points. 1.) Why is it ok to remove the button - because hardly anybody uses it. 2.) Why does Firefox removing the button not meant that "RSS is dying" - because people who currently use RSS will keep doing so, just without using the button.
    - xenomachina 16y ago
      Your second point is flawed. The button makes using RSS more convenient. Removing it makes it less convenient. Saying people would not be "put off" by making it less convenient is naive at best.

dkarl 16y ago

Your assumption is only true if the user experience stays the same. Some things (like web mail) take off even when the user experience sucks, but other things that people actually want can be held back by poor user experience. For an example that has spanned practically the entire history of the internet, consider online gaming. The first internet gamers (MUDers? my history is weak) were a small population of hardcore geeks, but as the user experiences got better, the number of people playing rose in a kind of slow-motion explosion. When each breakthrough game appeared, it attracted a new crowd of players who until then had not found online game slick and engaging enough. In 1985, 1990, 1995, or 2000 you would not have extrapolated the current percentage of online users playing social games into the future, because it was obvious the experience was going to get better. It was easy to imagine better graphics, sound, responsiveness, and social interaction, and everyone assumed the better experience would attract a broader range of users. With RSS it's not so easy to imagine how the user experience will improve. We're suffering a failure of imagination. We have the use case: Checking for recent updates on a web site is something people do all the time. They even do it on web sites they're visiting for the first time, and it can be really frustrating depending on the organization of the web site. We have the technology to serve this use case: RSS. So the users want the information and the browser can get it. We can't yet imagine an effective way to present the information to the users, but proof by failure of imagination is no proof at all. Personally, I think it's likely that someone will find a graceful way to present RSS information to the user, and RSS will disappear from our sight and from our vocabularies into a heretofore-unenvisaged UI element.