> It’s entirely opposite to the whole field of good user interface design? Good for whom? Good by what standard? The older I get the more I've come to suspect

> It’s entirely opposite to the whole field of good user interface design? Good for whom? Good by what standard? The older I get the more I've come to suspect that most UI and UX designers come from the Temple Grandin school. They seem to think that users, website visitors, etc. are just human cattle and that their job is to design better cattle chutes. I don't want a "better user interface". I want web apps that work, and I have yet to find one. Even dict.org reports errors when run through wave.webaim.org. - If your web app doesn't work in Lynx, it doesn't work. - If your web app doesn't work on a 56K dialup connection, it doesn't work. - If your web app isn't WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant, it doesn't work. > If I load up a site for some product, there’s basically 3 possible outcomes of reading the page: No, there are four outcomes. You forgot one: 4. This website is so obnoxious that I've forgotten why I bothered accessing it in the first place. If even one of your users asks, "Why am I doing this to myself," when visiting your website or using your web app, you've messed up.