5 ms·

I think this is a sub-category of a wider problem which permeates web/software/app design and that's hubris. Most sites/programs/apps are designed with the assu

I think this is a sub-category of a wider problem which permeates web/software/app design and that's hubris. Most sites/programs/apps are designed with the assumption that they're way more important than they really are. It's like the little kid who demands their parents immediate attention/action over the slightest thing which they consider hugely important. And while it's understandable (maybe even endearing) with a small child it's just annoying when it's a web site/piece of software made (presumably) by intelligent adults. Obviously there are exceptions but start by assuming I don't want you to change my default programs/subscribe to your newsletter/have your program or website pop-up or play sounds without asking/take a tour of your new features/flash text on my screen/create multiple non-hidden folders in the root of my home folder/install multiple services that need to be running constantly/receive marketing push notifications or texts/watch unskippable cut-scenes in games etc...

andsoitis 3y ago
Everyone seeks attention... in some form. That's ultimately the point of communication. It is to change the views of others, or to challenge, or to ask for answers. Communication is a means of influence. I don't think it is hubris. It isn't that they assume greater importance. To assume means to have considered. Instead, I think they either don't think so consciously OR they exert actions that are meant to derive more power/status/etc.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Communication is a means of influence. But not only that. Or even mostly that. In my experience, it's primarily a means of cooperation. Except when it comes to commerce, but most modern commerce is inherently manipulative in nature.
ben0x539 3y ago
I fear the wider, wider problem is that hubris pays off, it's not economically optimal for most sites to show this humility you'd like to see. Someone decided it's worth it to annoy us grumpy nerds in order to sell fractionally more stuff to the statistically average user. I don't think apps/sites are getting worse about this, it's that they're getting better at optimizing for users who aren't me. It's probably just deeply frustrating/alienating to have to use products that you're not the target audience for (and that's increasingly almost all products). (To be clear this isn't meant as derision of the 'statistically average user', it's perfectly justified that not everything is built to suit me, the protagonist of reality.)
- DharmaPolice 3y ago
  You're right there are obviously economic incentives driving this but I think (in general) the things that annoy us grumpy nerds also annoy everyone else - we just might be more conscious about what specifically is going on. Over the years I have helped out many non-tech savvy relatives/colleagues/friends and things like changing program defaults, changing home pages, browser desktop (or mobile push) notifications, too frequent business newsletters, etc have been a common source of rage and stress - made worse because the person doesn't always know how to stop the problem. In fact, we're shielded from some issues - imagine how bad it is for users without adblockers. But you're right - there's no easy way to deliver negative feedback for these negative practices - so they will presumably continue where commercially it's profitable (and not prohibited). I can hardly boycott every company/product which displayed arrogant behaviour - I'd have to live a hunter gatherer lifestyle by the end of the year.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago
  I reject this notion based on close to 20 years of consistent observation of and participation in the web development industry. In that time I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen credible AB tests even attempted, and even then the initiative was abandoned because none of the client's staff were interested in interpreting the results of their testing. All of that is to say in nearly two decades of building websites I've never even heard of a client attempting to make results-oriented decisions based on actual data about how their website looked or performed. 100% of the drivers of obnoxious website behavior that I have personally witnessed have been overeager marketing department heads and designers refusing to come to terms with the limitations of the medium.
  - ben0x539 3y ago
    That's honestly great to hear. I've not been super convinced of the way I've seen AB tests used to justify decisions but I figured it's just me not liking the results, and that the prevalence of shitty websites means that the businesses with good websites are just not competitive and disappear.
  - Tade0 3y ago
bandrami 3y ago
Somebody needs to write an updated Big Red Fez because modern devs clearly don't understand the idea. 20 years ago the problem was sites didn't have a banana; the problem now is sites are nothing but bananas. But the impact is the same.
detourdog 3y ago
I agree with this point and often see in the language used. Most companies seem to think we are all on the same page but we aren't. I bought a tool recently and it came with a registration card. All I had to do was scan it. The problem was scanning it took me to what looked like an error message but maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was search page. I have no idea.
lelanthran 3y ago
Yeah, but they do all those things in your second paragraph because they work! The sites who don't do those things don't get the sale, whether that sale is email addresses, new products or more engagement. It's a sad state of affairs.

andsoitis 3y ago

Everyone seeks attention... in some form. That's ultimately the point of communication. It is to change the views of others, or to challenge, or to ask for answers. Communication is a means of influence. I don't think it is hubris. It isn't that they assume greater importance. To assume means to have considered. Instead, I think they either don't think so consciously OR they exert actions that are meant to derive more power/status/etc.

JohnFen 3y ago
> Communication is a means of influence. But not only that. Or even mostly that. In my experience, it's primarily a means of cooperation. Except when it comes to commerce, but most modern commerce is inherently manipulative in nature.

ben0x539 3y ago

I fear the wider, wider problem is that hubris pays off, it's not economically optimal for most sites to show this humility you'd like to see. Someone decided it's worth it to annoy us grumpy nerds in order to sell fractionally more stuff to the statistically average user. I don't think apps/sites are getting worse about this, it's that they're getting better at optimizing for users who aren't me. It's probably just deeply frustrating/alienating to have to use products that you're not the target audience for (and that's increasingly almost all products). (To be clear this isn't meant as derision of the 'statistically average user', it's perfectly justified that not everything is built to suit me, the protagonist of reality.)

DharmaPolice 3y ago
You're right there are obviously economic incentives driving this but I think (in general) the things that annoy us grumpy nerds also annoy everyone else - we just might be more conscious about what specifically is going on. Over the years I have helped out many non-tech savvy relatives/colleagues/friends and things like changing program defaults, changing home pages, browser desktop (or mobile push) notifications, too frequent business newsletters, etc have been a common source of rage and stress - made worse because the person doesn't always know how to stop the problem. In fact, we're shielded from some issues - imagine how bad it is for users without adblockers. But you're right - there's no easy way to deliver negative feedback for these negative practices - so they will presumably continue where commercially it's profitable (and not prohibited). I can hardly boycott every company/product which displayed arrogant behaviour - I'd have to live a hunter gatherer lifestyle by the end of the year.
forgetfreeman 3y ago
I reject this notion based on close to 20 years of consistent observation of and participation in the web development industry. In that time I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen credible AB tests even attempted, and even then the initiative was abandoned because none of the client's staff were interested in interpreting the results of their testing. All of that is to say in nearly two decades of building websites I've never even heard of a client attempting to make results-oriented decisions based on actual data about how their website looked or performed. 100% of the drivers of obnoxious website behavior that I have personally witnessed have been overeager marketing department heads and designers refusing to come to terms with the limitations of the medium.
- ben0x539 3y ago
  That's honestly great to hear. I've not been super convinced of the way I've seen AB tests used to justify decisions but I figured it's just me not liking the results, and that the prevalence of shitty websites means that the businesses with good websites are just not competitive and disappear.
- Tade0 3y ago

bandrami 3y ago

Somebody needs to write an updated Big Red Fez because modern devs clearly don't understand the idea. 20 years ago the problem was sites didn't have a banana; the problem now is sites are nothing but bananas. But the impact is the same.

detourdog 3y ago

I agree with this point and often see in the language used. Most companies seem to think we are all on the same page but we aren't. I bought a tool recently and it came with a registration card. All I had to do was scan it. The problem was scanning it took me to what looked like an error message but maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was search page. I have no idea.

lelanthran 3y ago

Yeah, but they do all those things in your second paragraph because they work! The sites who don't do those things don't get the sale, whether that sale is email addresses, new products or more engagement. It's a sad state of affairs.