4 ms·
because it would've probably failed with other password managers and probably browers (if there are people who save their card details to a browser) and it wou
by merb 6y ago
because it would've probably failed with other password managers and probably browers (if there are people who save their card details to a browser)
and it would probably also fail with tab.
- jojobas 6y agoIf all the password managers in the world fail at this site, it's still a problem with the password managers. The fact that the field was looking as non-editable from the start has nothing to do with the fact that it filled the wrong field. The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking.
- happytoexplain 6y ago>it filled the wrong field I agree, this is awful (I'd really like to know how on earth it decided that this field is where the expiration year belongs. It sounds like some extremely aggressive assumptions are being made). >The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking. It's impossible to overstate how wrongheaded, unproductive, and, frankly, lazy this sentiment is.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 6y ago> The user also had a chance to see how it filled the form and didn't bother checking. So ... you're saying it's the their own fault and Substack should keep the money?
- jojobas 6y agoIt's definitely not Substack's fault. They presented the user a form to fill, the user used some tool to fill it and it failed. Whether Substack should keep the money is a matter of goodwill, it's no different from the user fat-fingering an extra zero.