5 ms·

Yeah, I also found that tone sort of jarring, but they do bring up a good point; the warning banner and inputs should be contextual and having to input the numb

Yeah, I also found that tone sort of jarring, but they do bring up a good point; the warning banner and inputs should be contextual and having to input the number of things affected would be a UI improvement. And I can understand why they would write this in anger/frustration.

mattcwilson 5y ago
I’m curious which statements from the article carried that tone?
- burnished 5y ago
  I think in the "But theres a confirmation box, right?" and if I had to quote a portion I'd quote >>"To paraphrase, the box tells you “You’re about to demolish a house. If there are any people inside, they will all die”. But it doesn’t include anything specific to break you out of your auto-pilot mode if you’ve confused the address and think you’re looking at an empty house." >>"The dialog should be more contextual and, paraphrasing again, it should say “You’re about to kill 55,000 people.” That would’ve certainly made me pause." Theres something about the juxtaposition that makes it feel like it should have been obvious. I think its because in those examples you would blame whoever didn't put whatever guard rail was necessary to prevent those outcomes. My suspicion is that it wasn't the authors intent and they were probably just upset, but thats an opinion I formed after reading the rest.
  - mattcwilson 5y ago
    Thank you for quoting. I see where you’re coming from - the comparison to killing people is pretty hyperbolic. Do you agree that, hyperbolic metaphors aside, the UI improvement suggestion is a good one?
    - burnished 5y ago
      go back and re-read the comment you originally replied to
      - mattcwilson 5y ago
        Indeed - thanks :)