4 ms·

Imagine if these people made posts like "I edited user32.dll to dummy out random functions I deem unnecessary like RegisterClass or CreateWindowEx and now nothi

Imagine if these people made posts like "I edited user32.dll to dummy out random functions I deem unnecessary like RegisterClass or CreateWindowEx and now nothing works! This is proof that Windows is broken!" It will forever be a mystery for me why people deliberately make their browsers work in ways that contradict the standards the web is built on and then manage to find blame in others when stuff doesn't work. It's already difficult enough to support all major browsers when their interpretations of the standards differ very slightly.

naikrovek 3y ago
this happens a lot. A LOT. not this exactly, but I know a lot of people who keep .reg files for "fixing Windows bullshit" on a new system, which they built up when Windows XP or Windows 2000 was new. Of course, a lot of those "fixes" now break things, because the underlying workings of windows changes a lot, but every last person I know who uses these has very odd problems with Windows that I have never once seen myself. a lot of these things that only experts knew how to do 20 years ago are now the causes of very odd problems, because these folks don't bother to verify that these registry settings are still the correct way to make the intended changes.
rjh29 3y ago
or the entitled "I've disabled Javascript, all web developers should make their site work without JS" when even in 2013 only 0.2% of all users to gov.uk had JS disabled* https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...
- j1elo 3y ago
  That might be a very misleading statistic. What if more than 0.2% of people wanted to disable JavaScript, but in the end surrended to the fact that those pesky web devs never test their creations with JS disabled? I know I am one of those who would like to disable JS, but it's just not practical. So stats really are a dangerous tool, they sometimes can end up telling you just what you want to hear...
  - lolinder 3y ago
    If anyone tests their web pages without JS, it would be gov.uk. I'm an American but I frequently reference their guidelines on accessibility and similar because they're so thorough and conscientious about it.
    - j1elo 3y ago
      Yeah but I am afraid every other website on the Internet is not done with the care and good craftsmanship that the gov.uk applies to its website. I wish, though! But then so many web devs (and so many of their managers, too!) would be lost without knowing what to do without a JS framework that weights several MBs worth of bloat...
      - john_the_writer 3y ago
        It's about cost. If it takes a web dev a day to progressively enhance a page from html through css and JS, then it's a day they're adding value to a small slice of the users. Even if you multiplied the 0.2 by 10 or 20, you're still looking at a slice not large enough to build for.
        j1elo 3y ago
        I'd say it's about priorities (i.e. very much related to cost, but with slight differences). That's why I mentioned the lack of people who cares. If you as a manager care, or if a dev with enough decision power cares, it will just be included as part of the time it costs to get the website done. A worker putting a helmet and appropriate clothes is losing time that could be beter spent producing value. Or if we talk about social policies and minorities, for example, even if as the word says, it's a "minority" of people so it might seem that it's a slice not large enough to improve for. A bit extreme examples, but you get the idea. Also a 0.2% of all world population is still a huge amount of people. It's just that people who can take decisions, just don't care. But some people do care, like those in charge of co.uk websites, and then we all see how well things can be done and how poorly we've been doing in comparison.
  - 3y ago

naikrovek 3y ago

this happens a lot. A LOT. not this exactly, but I know a lot of people who keep .reg files for "fixing Windows bullshit" on a new system, which they built up when Windows XP or Windows 2000 was new. Of course, a lot of those "fixes" now break things, because the underlying workings of windows changes a lot, but every last person I know who uses these has very odd problems with Windows that I have never once seen myself. a lot of these things that only experts knew how to do 20 years ago are now the causes of very odd problems, because these folks don't bother to verify that these registry settings are still the correct way to make the intended changes.

rjh29 3y ago

or the entitled "I've disabled Javascript, all web developers should make their site work without JS" when even in 2013 only 0.2% of all users to gov.uk had JS disabled* https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...

j1elo 3y ago
That might be a very misleading statistic. What if more than 0.2% of people wanted to disable JavaScript, but in the end surrended to the fact that those pesky web devs never test their creations with JS disabled? I know I am one of those who would like to disable JS, but it's just not practical. So stats really are a dangerous tool, they sometimes can end up telling you just what you want to hear...
- lolinder 3y ago
  If anyone tests their web pages without JS, it would be gov.uk. I'm an American but I frequently reference their guidelines on accessibility and similar because they're so thorough and conscientious about it.
  - j1elo 3y ago
    Yeah but I am afraid every other website on the Internet is not done with the care and good craftsmanship that the gov.uk applies to its website. I wish, though! But then so many web devs (and so many of their managers, too!) would be lost without knowing what to do without a JS framework that weights several MBs worth of bloat...
    - john_the_writer 3y ago
      It's about cost. If it takes a web dev a day to progressively enhance a page from html through css and JS, then it's a day they're adding value to a small slice of the users. Even if you multiplied the 0.2 by 10 or 20, you're still looking at a slice not large enough to build for.
      - j1elo 3y ago
        I'd say it's about priorities (i.e. very much related to cost, but with slight differences). That's why I mentioned the lack of people who cares. If you as a manager care, or if a dev with enough decision power cares, it will just be included as part of the time it costs to get the website done. A worker putting a helmet and appropriate clothes is losing time that could be beter spent producing value. Or if we talk about social policies and minorities, for example, even if as the word says, it's a "minority" of people so it might seem that it's a slice not large enough to improve for. A bit extreme examples, but you get the idea. Also a 0.2% of all world population is still a huge amount of people. It's just that people who can take decisions, just don't care. But some people do care, like those in charge of co.uk websites, and then we all see how well things can be done and how poorly we've been doing in comparison.
- 3y ago