Hacker News Reader

Comment by bachmeier | Hacker News Reader

All the problems Mozilla has are summed up in this one sentence (taken from the Mozilla blog post):

> Enter Laura Chambers, a dynamic board member who will step into the CEO role for the remainder of this year.

"Laura Chambers" is a link to her LinkedIn profile. Nothing you can do but shake your head if it didn't occur to anyone that putting that link in the post announcing her appointment was a bad idea.

View on HN

> putting that link in the post announcing her appointment was a bad idea

In what way?

(Footnote: OP’s reply is in another thread.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697

That. Exactly.

Nothing to add.

Anybody without a personal ten years old website using some hand-made HTML should probably not be CEO of Firefox.

Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO. Notably, sometimes standing too close to a problem prevents one from seeing solutions. Let's maybe start with actual admonisions against her (and her replacement's) relevant qualifications, achievements, or character (or lack thereof), instead of grabbing pitchforks and venting about how she's the wrong person to get a greenfield browser off the ground; simply put, that's not where Firefox or Mozilla is at right now.

"Being in love with the tech doesn't make someone a good CEO."

I never said that this was a sufficient condition. I said it was a necessary condition.

We have spent decades trusting tech-illiterate CEO’s because "they knew the business and knowing the tech was useless".

See the result for yourself in every single company.

It has nothing to do with tech. It's about a “pivot to data privacy” linking to one of the worse offender is terms of privacy invasion, that's just insane. It's as if say announced pivot to cloud computing and did so on a website hosted on AWS.

I have more respect for people that use hand-made HTML over some JS library that makes unreadable code

The HN hivemind sometimes likes vintage web development and web design so much it becomes really weird.

What I find weird is how many professional web developers contact me to ask what theme I’m using on my blog, a straight HTML website with 42 lines of inline CSS. I even was asked once with JS library I was using. (there is no JS, it’s a blog !)

None of those sending me those emails bothered to even look at the code. None even thought it was possible that this was NOT a "theme" somewhere on the web.

Yet I’m seen as the weird one in the industry.

I don't understand how a couple of naive emails translates to the disrespect of an entire class of people.

Well the parent expresses surprise at how many such emails they receive. I don't think the disrespect an entire class of people, they just say "it's not a couple naive emails, it's a lot more than I would expect".

It's a humble brag, not substantive.

You mentioned "professional web developers", not "professional UI designers".

That's the point.

I always find it frustrating to read HN comments expressing hatred towards mobile and whitespace-rich designs.

These designs exist based on user research, as most people find them pleasant and intuitive. I don't understand what's wrong with these design patterns.

Microsoft went with whatever Windows 8 was based on user research too. Just because someone did a few interviews it doesn't make it good. :)

In this case I have to agree though. Linking to LinkedIn is simply ridiculous. What's next, linking to a high school yearbook?

All too often being 'mobile first' means being desktop last. It feels like a betrayal when UX becomes a zero sum tradeoff between new users and the enthusiast users who built the platform and community to be what it is. User research metrics will favor the new users every time because inexperienced users tend to be the majority. Eventually, the enthusiast users leave, causing many to wonder why the original culture and appeal of a website disappeared.

Research by and on whom?

I don't doubt in the slightest that fancy mobile-y design styles look nice and are often intuitive at T=0, but we've lost a lot of throughput and information density by going for them as an industry.

It's the same as trying to write code on a phone, but backwards

All terrible UIs are said to be based on some amount of "user research" and are usually called "pleasant and intuitive" only by people promoting them.

Can you name a single failed interface that wasn't?

How would you like it if reading this comment downloaded a 2mb react bundle?

Really hard to tell if this is sarcasm or an extremely niche elitist.

When you pay 6M, I think you have the right to be slightly elitist. Isn't that the whole argument for such indecent salaries? "But they are one of a kind! We have to pay them that much otherwise we're screwed".

I'm not sure why people think tech asceticism would grant people the ability to successfully run a large company.

The decline of Firefox's popularity didn't happen because the CEO uses LinkedIn, arguably one could say that the resistance to trends would be more harmful than helpful if you're aiming to improve browser marketshare. The problem for Mozilla is that the internet is not mostly weird nerds anymore.

During Chrome's rise to popularity I don't think focusing on privacy was the popular thing to do, but the tides do seem to be turning and Mozilla could benefit from riding this wave again.

I am probably just slow but why is that a bad idea?

Let say for a moment that it is acceptable for the CEO of a corporation working on the independence of the Web to not have her personal independent webpage.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say for a moment that it is acceptable that the personal independent webpage is replaced by a monopolistic platform trying to centralize the web.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume

Let say for a moment that we don’t care that the platform is owned by one of the biggest competitor of the corporation. Historically and currently.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say for a moment that it is not a problem that the platform is one of the worst offender when regarding privacy of its users and handling personal data, even if the new CEO is talking about privacy.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say that to there’s no problem in requiring every person clicking this link to have an account on the linked platform to know who the privacy-oriented new CEO is.

I know, absurd, but let’s assume.

Let say that nobody at Mozilla considered it to be a problem as the introductory post of the new CEO…

It is literally difficult for me to understand the problem through your condescension

I’m sorry I’m sounding condescending. I was trying to be funny. The point is that there are so many problems that it is even a problem to list them. Those problems are so evident to me that I didn’t thought people might not understand it.

1. Linkedin is a platform promoting a closed-garden vision of the web while Firefox is seen a the last stand against that closed vision.

2. Linkedin is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has been the biggest opponent to Mozilla and still is, even if it may be topped by Google in that place.

3. Linkedin is known for its terrible security practices regarding personal datas. It is also a big seller of private data. Which goes against "promoting privacy".

This tells a lot from a symbolic perspective. But it is not only symbolic:

4. You need a Linkedin account to view the link. Meaning that the very first step of the news CEO is requiring users to have an account on a rival platform which harvest their data if they want to know who she is.

5. It means that the new CEO find her Linkedin account more important that any personal website, if any, which is philosophically the opposite of Mozilla self-proclaimed mission.

I hope it is is clearer and you understand that, yes, it is a big deal. CEO position is mostly symbolic. The very first move and the fact that nobody at Mozilla even realized that it could send a bad signal is enough indication that nobody there even understand the original mission anymore. Nobody there cares about privacy. Nobody there cares about the independence of the Web.

> I was trying to be funny.

You succeeded!

What he means is that as a CEO of a corporation that is supposed to defend things like openness, privacy, power to the users etc., it's ironic that the only tool to see her profile is from a Microsoft-owned company, which is quite the opposite of most of Mozilla's core values (well, mostly regarding privacy).

I don't find myself reacting to any of that with the angst it seems this inspired in you. If someone doesn't have a personal website, it doesn't make me think they hate independent websites or privacy. And if they don't have a personal website but someone on their staff needs to link to a persistent, business-oriented online profile, LinkedIn is about as good as anything I can think of.

Because you have to create an account, be logged in, and agree to be tracked. In other words, the opposite of the mission of Mozilla. They've long had a reputation as one of the worst offenders, and they're owned by Microsoft, which is obviously not known for respecting user privacy.

> even if the new CEO is talking about talking about privacy.

Intentional or a typo?

Absurd, how? Can you be more specific and plain about what you believe is wrong, without the oratory rhetoric? You’ve presented a list of evidence in support of some point you have in mind, but we need you to plainly state your beliefs — not just your arguments in support of them — if you’d like us to consider your views.

These things are somewhat ironic, given the focus of the states mission. But is it /really/ a reflection or explanation of any serious problem that the organization has? Is is really an indication that the interim CEO is not capable?

Chambers doesn't look like she has any other digital footprint in general apart from the one LinkedIn page that still doesn't contain any personal info other than her workex and education.

I would argue this is much better than having your own website and putting out more information about yourself than is needed.

Bad idea because it's LinkedIn, which has a shady reputation? Or that her profile doesn't look good? Or something else?

See my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303697

LinkedIn doesn't have shady reputation. It is shady.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com