6 ms·

> Not entirely sure why you think the assertion of your own opinion over the supposed assertion of another's is any better by the way. I don't think my opinion

> Not entirely sure why you think the assertion of your own opinion over the supposed assertion of another's is any better by the way. I don't think my opinion is better. I'm disagreeing with the take that it's never a good idea to do something fancy. I think the assertion the article makes, which from my read can be reduced to: > you're wrong if you care about fancy text more than you care about screen readers Is problematic because, generously it's too simplistic. The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same; because using things in weird ways they were never expected is the hacker ethos. And I think the world would be improved by more people coming up with more fun things, or doing things just because they're cool. We need fewer people who tell others they're wrong for doing something fun, and more people who do things because they're fun. In other words; because this problem can be fixed by improving screen readers, we shouldn't fix it by reducing the amount of cool shit people can do. > This will be a shocker I'm sure, but I think the demonstration [...] to this issue, and may not be aware. I'm not shocked, I simply don't agree. The author was able to write it as a suggestion, and make the argument using "should" but chose to assert it as an affirmative responsibility.

perching_aix 2y ago
> I don't think my opinion is better. Not what I was suggesting either. I was talking about your assertion of it. To be more explicit, what you're doing is > The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same; a tit-for-tat. If you claim that asserting a preference or an opinion is wrong (which I'd agree with), you were then at fault for doing the exact same thing. And just like the author, you merely felt justified to act that way, and would have been able to make do otherwise, but chose not to.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  > And just like the author, you merely felt justified to act that way, and would have been able to make do otherwise, but chose not to. I'm not arguing for tit-for-tat. I think it's dumb. I took the affirmative stance I did, only to match the tone of the article. Adding the same absurdity to the counter point. I think we're both equally wrong for taking an unnuanced stance. The author and I both took stances that exclude important nuance. I was partially hoping partially expecting the remainder of what I said would come across. That idea being, options are better, warnings are better, absolutes are problematic. > The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same; It would have been better for me to say "So I guess I'm required to do the same here". I'd much rather just suggest options, you can tell because I said as much > But if that's a good thing or a bad thing should be reserved, exclusively for you to decide. I don't want to make your decisions for you. Some of the authors points are compelling, I don't want anyone to die because they missed the tsunami warning either. But I find their specific arguments here needlessly restrictive. They're not warning, or reminding. They're saying your social media posts are wrong if you don't do it this way, and accusing the author of being irresponsible. Something *do* need to be easily readable, but that important nuance wasn't included in the article, just like I didn't include how tsunami warning without a doubt, need to be as accessible as possible.
gblargg 2y ago
You make a good point about being quirky. People using these "font" tools for Unicode should at least know about the problems it creates so they don't think it works smoothly like proper font styling. Personally my brain classifies overuse of Unicode as visual spam and just moves on to other more plain content.

perching_aix 2y ago

> I don't think my opinion is better. Not what I was suggesting either. I was talking about your assertion of it. To be more explicit, what you're doing is > The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same; a tit-for-tat. If you claim that asserting a preference or an opinion is wrong (which I'd agree with), you were then at fault for doing the exact same thing. And just like the author, you merely felt justified to act that way, and would have been able to make do otherwise, but chose not to.

grayhatter 2y ago
> And just like the author, you merely felt justified to act that way, and would have been able to make do otherwise, but chose not to. I'm not arguing for tit-for-tat. I think it's dumb. I took the affirmative stance I did, only to match the tone of the article. Adding the same absurdity to the counter point. I think we're both equally wrong for taking an unnuanced stance. The author and I both took stances that exclude important nuance. I was partially hoping partially expecting the remainder of what I said would come across. That idea being, options are better, warnings are better, absolutes are problematic. > The author feels empowered to tell others they're wrong. So I want to do the same; It would have been better for me to say "So I guess I'm required to do the same here". I'd much rather just suggest options, you can tell because I said as much > But if that's a good thing or a bad thing should be reserved, exclusively for you to decide. I don't want to make your decisions for you. Some of the authors points are compelling, I don't want anyone to die because they missed the tsunami warning either. But I find their specific arguments here needlessly restrictive. They're not warning, or reminding. They're saying your social media posts are wrong if you don't do it this way, and accusing the author of being irresponsible. Something *do* need to be easily readable, but that important nuance wasn't included in the article, just like I didn't include how tsunami warning without a doubt, need to be as accessible as possible.

gblargg 2y ago

You make a good point about being quirky. People using these "font" tools for Unicode should at least know about the problems it creates so they don't think it works smoothly like proper font styling. Personally my brain classifies overuse of Unicode as visual spam and just moves on to other more plain content.