5 ms·

> This abomination has to die, and today would not be soon enough. Please don't use this kind of language. It's software, and a lot of people work hard on it.

> This abomination has to die, and today would not be soon enough. Please don't use this kind of language. It's software, and a lot of people work hard on it. Sometimes they make decisions you disagree with. There's no need to be rude.

jsjddbbwj 7y ago
That comment would be rude if it personally insulted the developers.
stronglikedan 7y ago
It's just a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a valid description of a lot of people's feelings for this user-hostile feature.
- Tagbert 7y ago
  It may be a figure of speech but it is a ridiculous overreaction to call it an abomination. You may not like it but it’s nowhere near enough to describe that way. What term will you use when something truly bad comes up?
  - CrappyFanThor 7y ago
    unusable
  - pengaru 7y ago
    > What term will you use when something truly bad comes up? Surely you can imagine genuinely offensive overreactions, plain use of 'abomination' is nowhere near over the top. Consult some of Linus Torvalds' famous rants for examples.
  - nocman 7y ago
    > What term will you use when something truly bad comes up? So you are saying it would be OK to call some feature of a piece of software "an abomination" if it were "something truly bad", then? Well, then why should mikro2nd be prevented from calling this feature "an abomination" if that is an accurate description of how he feels about it?
- cjaybo 7y ago
  Is it a valid description of people's feelings, or is it hyperbole? I struggle to see how it can be both at once.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Subjectivity is a bitch ain’t it?
ooobit2 7y ago
I'd agree on a lot of things in life, but UX is an exception because decisions made about how we interact with something have an area of effect. I've railed against Google's UX approach for years. Their UX approach requires too many steps between states. Where does this get dangerous, even potentially lethal? Android Auto. If one lock screen is too distracting while driving, Android Auto adds one more. None of your non-Google App notifications will appear on your dashboard, but Android Auto doesn't let you access your notifications unless you completely exit the app. You can't open Messages in Android Auto, even when the vehicle is not in motion. Android Auto disables all touch controls when the vehicle is in motion, and if you disabled Google Voice on your phone, you won't know until you're going 80MPH down a highway and need to adjust your GPS that you can't use touch, you can't use Voice, and you'd have to exit Android Auto just to re-enable it, and it can't just be enabled for Android Auto, it has to be enabled for your whole device... and Google owns any data you generate with the Voice Assistant, and you have no right to restrict how Google uses it, including the sale of that data to a third party. So, I agree on most things to not be rude. But with UX, the goal is to prevent conflicts by modeling features around our most likely approach to using said features. When professionals at Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, force end users to use features in a specific (rather than intuitive) way, the consequences are wide and deep and the terms of service make it impossible to hold them accountable to change it.
dx87 7y ago
Working hard on something doesn't make it exempt from criticism. And they didn't even say anything about the devs, just the feature. It's not like you can be rude to a web browser.
- coldpie 7y ago
  No one said it was exempt from criticism. Saying that someone else's work is an "abomination that has to die" is rude and an inappropriate way to express your opinion.
  - MikusR 7y ago
    "abomination /əbɒmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ noun: a thing that causes disgust or loathing." It perfectly describes that new address bar.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      If that were true, they wouldn't have released it. I don't understand why you are so eager to defend that choice of words. I don't think it is too much to ask that conversations remain cordial, even when people disagree.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - MikusR 7y ago
        Because those words perfectly describe how I feel about those changes to address bar. And they released it for the same reason Slack released their input box update https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21589647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21589647. Some manager wanted to leave a mark and nobody was there to oppose them.
        nxrabl 7y ago
        Your feelings are valid, and understandable for a piece of software which is so intimately integrated into your daily life. However, allowing those feelings to influence the way you discuss this software seems unwise, especially if you intend to convince the software's developers to change their minds about it. When people feel that core parts of their identity are being attacked, they tend to shut down and stop listening. Developers of complex software like a web browser, who have dedicated large parts of their professional lives to the nitty-gritty details of its creation, surely feel as emotionally attached to it as you do, and they are likely to perceive an attack on it as an attack on themselves. If the impact of this change is so great, then you have a responsibility to present your criticism of it in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of it being received and accepted.
kmnns 7y ago
> Please don't use this kind of language. Please don’t use this kind of “don’t use this kind of language” language. There is no need to be sensitive.
- maest 7y ago
  Surely arguing that it's ok to be sensitive is the only self-consistent position. Complaining people are sensitive denotes sensitivity.
orryx 7y ago
On a related note, I recently started my first dev job. I found an issue and told one of my mentors "I wonder if something stupid is going on in <insert library name>". She called me out in front of the entire office saying "I don't appreciate you calling our work stupid, we worked really hard on these libraries for years". What? Are most developers this sensitive about wording? I should have said "weird" or "strange" instead of "stupid", but give me a break. I obviously wasn't attacking anyone, it was just a figure of speech and we all have moments of stupidity.
nocman 7y ago
Did you think the GP meant that Firefox "has to die"? Because that's not how I took it. I think he means just this new feature needs to die. And yeah, it's a bit over the top (I haven't looked at the new feature yet, just read descriptions of it), but I didn't feel like it needed a "don't talk like this" response.

jsjddbbwj 7y ago

That comment would be rude if it personally insulted the developers.

stronglikedan 7y ago

It's just a figure of speech. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a valid description of a lot of people's feelings for this user-hostile feature.

Tagbert 7y ago
It may be a figure of speech but it is a ridiculous overreaction to call it an abomination. You may not like it but it’s nowhere near enough to describe that way. What term will you use when something truly bad comes up?
- CrappyFanThor 7y ago
  unusable
- pengaru 7y ago
  > What term will you use when something truly bad comes up? Surely you can imagine genuinely offensive overreactions, plain use of 'abomination' is nowhere near over the top. Consult some of Linus Torvalds' famous rants for examples.
- nocman 7y ago
  > What term will you use when something truly bad comes up? So you are saying it would be OK to call some feature of a piece of software "an abomination" if it were "something truly bad", then? Well, then why should mikro2nd be prevented from calling this feature "an abomination" if that is an accurate description of how he feels about it?
cjaybo 7y ago
Is it a valid description of people's feelings, or is it hyperbole? I struggle to see how it can be both at once.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Subjectivity is a bitch ain’t it?

ooobit2 7y ago

I'd agree on a lot of things in life, but UX is an exception because decisions made about how we interact with something have an area of effect. I've railed against Google's UX approach for years. Their UX approach requires too many steps between states. Where does this get dangerous, even potentially lethal? Android Auto. If one lock screen is too distracting while driving, Android Auto adds one more. None of your non-Google App notifications will appear on your dashboard, but Android Auto doesn't let you access your notifications unless you completely exit the app. You can't open Messages in Android Auto, even when the vehicle is not in motion. Android Auto disables all touch controls when the vehicle is in motion, and if you disabled Google Voice on your phone, you won't know until you're going 80MPH down a highway and need to adjust your GPS that you can't use touch, you can't use Voice, and you'd have to exit Android Auto just to re-enable it, and it can't just be enabled for Android Auto, it has to be enabled for your whole device... and Google owns any data you generate with the Voice Assistant, and you have no right to restrict how Google uses it, including the sale of that data to a third party. So, I agree on most things to not be rude. But with UX, the goal is to prevent conflicts by modeling features around our most likely approach to using said features. When professionals at Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, force end users to use features in a specific (rather than intuitive) way, the consequences are wide and deep and the terms of service make it impossible to hold them accountable to change it.

dx87 7y ago

Working hard on something doesn't make it exempt from criticism. And they didn't even say anything about the devs, just the feature. It's not like you can be rude to a web browser.

coldpie 7y ago
No one said it was exempt from criticism. Saying that someone else's work is an "abomination that has to die" is rude and an inappropriate way to express your opinion.
- MikusR 7y ago
  "abomination /əbɒmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ noun: a thing that causes disgust or loathing." It perfectly describes that new address bar.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    If that were true, they wouldn't have released it. I don't understand why you are so eager to defend that choice of words. I don't think it is too much to ask that conversations remain cordial, even when people disagree.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - MikusR 7y ago
      Because those words perfectly describe how I feel about those changes to address bar. And they released it for the same reason Slack released their input box update https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21589647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21589647. Some manager wanted to leave a mark and nobody was there to oppose them.
      - nxrabl 7y ago
        Your feelings are valid, and understandable for a piece of software which is so intimately integrated into your daily life. However, allowing those feelings to influence the way you discuss this software seems unwise, especially if you intend to convince the software's developers to change their minds about it. When people feel that core parts of their identity are being attacked, they tend to shut down and stop listening. Developers of complex software like a web browser, who have dedicated large parts of their professional lives to the nitty-gritty details of its creation, surely feel as emotionally attached to it as you do, and they are likely to perceive an attack on it as an attack on themselves. If the impact of this change is so great, then you have a responsibility to present your criticism of it in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of it being received and accepted.

kmnns 7y ago

> Please don't use this kind of language. Please don’t use this kind of “don’t use this kind of language” language. There is no need to be sensitive.

maest 7y ago
Surely arguing that it's ok to be sensitive is the only self-consistent position. Complaining people are sensitive denotes sensitivity.

orryx 7y ago

On a related note, I recently started my first dev job. I found an issue and told one of my mentors "I wonder if something stupid is going on in <insert library name>". She called me out in front of the entire office saying "I don't appreciate you calling our work stupid, we worked really hard on these libraries for years". What? Are most developers this sensitive about wording? I should have said "weird" or "strange" instead of "stupid", but give me a break. I obviously wasn't attacking anyone, it was just a figure of speech and we all have moments of stupidity.

nocman 7y ago

Did you think the GP meant that Firefox "has to die"? Because that's not how I took it. I think he means just this new feature needs to die. And yeah, it's a bit over the top (I haven't looked at the new feature yet, just read descriptions of it), but I didn't feel like it needed a "don't talk like this" response.