4 ms·
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
by 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 agoHitting 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 agoYou'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 agoNo, 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 agoYour 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.