3 ms·
That would, by itself, make the UI less shitty. Also, if you're the sort of person who thinks in those terms, you're also likely the sort of person who'd have c
by pdpi 6y ago
That would, by itself, make the UI less shitty. Also, if you're the sort of person who thinks in those terms, you're also likely the sort of person who'd have come up with a better design overall anyway.
- dylan604 6y agoThis sounds like one of those situations where devs tasked with programming something that they have little to no understanding of what they are programming does. Yes, the dev programmed button A to perform action B, but doesn't truly understand how/why/what/when/where action B. It's just a check box of the requirements that has now been completed. However, a dev that does understand action B would be able to anticipate various forms of input from button A and how that could cause undesired results from action B. This isn't a knock on the dev that is less knowledgable about the full thing. It is a knock on the people upstream that should be more aware of issues. Also, the people most knowledgeable about action B tend to have little to no understanding of programming. While they might understand that providing bogus data to action B can have bad results, they are not aware enough to tell the devs that sometimes valid looking data is just not sane.
- acdha 6y agoI wouldn’t even assume lack of understanding as much as being locked into a work-to-order situation where they’re not rewarded, possibly punished, for doing anything which isn’t on the assignment. This is super common in outsourced hellscapes where the MBAs like to LARP as architects and UI designers and there’s no effective feedback loop from the actual users.