nsmartt

My reasoning is this:

- It would be ironic to complain about a less famously terrible social network on said social network

- It wouldn't be ironic with Facebook because it's popular opinion that Facebook is terrible and that its users are prone to complaining on Facebook

- It would be ironic that it's not ironic to complain on Facebook about Facebook on Facebook because complaining about X social network on X social network would be ironic

This article didn't really clear up the definition for me.

What are the factors that determine the expected result?

Is it ironic that complaining about Facebook on Facebook is not ironic?

This reminds me of another article from a while back which advocated 6 items in decreasing priority.

    1 -> big item
    2 -> medium item
    2 -> medium item
    3 -> small item
    3 -> small item
    3 -> small item

I can't remember anything specific enough to find it, though.

Either could be beneficial, and choosing only the next three at first may be a good way of forming a habit.

The following works without issues, for whatever reason: 'select *'

I use NoScript and Ghostery to prevent tracking. There are certainly legitimate use-cases.

Your comment is difficult to comprehend, and low on information. Why should the year have any effect on whether users should use NoScript?

In the future, I would recommend going into detail rather than being dismissive.

Edit: ah, you were quoting the parent. I'm not convinced that excuses it. Sites should degrade gracefully, as users are becoming more aware of tracking technologies and taking steps to prevent it. Example: Tumblr actually fails to work with Ghostery enabled.

Disclaimer: The following isn't accusatory in any way. "Genuinely curious", as some are apt to say.

Can you explain why Chattanooga is more expensive? [This](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cost+of+living+chattano...) says otherwise. I'm considering both (and a number of other cities), so I'd really like to know.

Yes, of course you can. Why couldn't you?

> It's more secure. If identifying session data is not accessible to JavaScript, it makes a site more secure from XSS attacks.

HTTPOnly should take care of this.

I'm not entirely convinced this was misogynist.

Right now, I'm trying to think of jobs for a news provider that wouldn't require tech savvy. "Secretary" is the only one that comes to mind. Secretaries are stereotypically women.

I used to argue that well-written code needed no documentation, but I read various articles about documentation anyway.

The takeaway was this: Even if my code is clear, neither I nor anyone else should have to read through a function in order to understand what it does. Reading a comment should be enough to use it.

>We're proud of them, and we want to show them off -- aesthetic parallels to OS X or not.

This is completely understandable. I appreciate taking pride in your work,—we all do—but it's detrimental to adoption. You're sacrificing mindshare because of fondness for your work.

It boils down to a straightforward question: Are you more committed to creating a beautiful design (regardless of similarities to OS X) or are you more committed to bringing elementary to users?

If you're more dedicated to the former, I can respect that 100%, but it's important that this is the question you ask yourselves.

edit: clarity

There is a key difference between making a feature seem different and actually re-engineering it. I assume you meant the latter, so I just thought I'd offer some advice on word choice.

I can agree with this to some extent, and I don't have a solid answer as far as a different approach. However, knock-offs feel cheap, and because elementary feels like a knock-off, it's having trouble gaining some mindshare.

Taking steps to differentiate from OS X a bit more would (arguably, perhaps) be an improvement, albeit not a technical one.

I doubt anyone thinks this is technically copying OS X but the design is similar enough that it's clearly meant to be reminiscent of OS X.

I've seen a lot of interesting tools they're building (e.g. https://launchpad.net/scratch, https://launchpad.net/geary), so I almost want to use it, but the OS X mimicry is a huge deterrent. I haven't used it. I did find this though: http://elementaryos.org/docs/human-interface-guidelines

I really like a lot of the stuff Elementary is doing, but I loathe the way they're mimicking OS X. It's a complete deal breaker for me. It feels like a knock-off.

>A good user experience can be achieved by providing users with an efficient way to understand and fix problems that they encounter.

Agreed.

>De-featuring a product

If I were building a browser today, I wouldn't want the option to be where Mozilla had placed it. I think of this more as a correction than as removing a feature. I don't think we're going to agree on this one, which is fine.

>produces a worse experience for everyone

Not at all. The majority of users do not need this feature, and those that do are likely to be sufficiently experienced to find it anyway.

>Those who _would_ have had a problem they couldn't solve will _still_ ultimately have a bad experience, because it's their own pattern of usage, and not any defect in the software, that's ultimately getting them stuck.

This is debatable. Good UX means preventing these kinds of pitfalls.

>the notes say that it was removed

This is a failure on their part to communicate the move, which sucks. It's also possibly a direct attempt to prevent people from using this feature for whatever reason, which is kind of sleazy.

>and that user-set values will be reset to default, which, IMO, is an unacceptable thing for an update patch to _ever_ do.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. I take no issue with moving the option to about:config. I also wouldn't take issue with it being removed entirely, because add-ons such as NoScript are superior to that feature anyway.

It's true that users should not break things without some mind as to how to fix them, but it's also irrelevant. If a user breaks your product, it makes no difference to him or her who broke it. It's still broken. Users will have a bad experience.

This doesn't mean advanced options shouldn't exist, but it does mean that they should be out of the way for non-advanced users. In this case, the setting is moved to about:config or to add-ons, so I don't see how we've lost anything.

Are you opining that some users may not be able to find the setting in about:config? Would they not just enter "How to disable JavaScript in new Firefox" into a search engine?

>"Non-technical users" is a contradiction in terms. If you're using technology, you're a "technical user".

This is a debate about semantics. "Non-technical" is a colloquialism. I see no benefit to this train of thought.

The idea is that non-technical users shouldn't have options in preferences that will break the web for them, and that technical users will use about:config or an add-on (e.g. NoScript). I find it difficult to argue with that.

edit: clarity. total rewrite.

On the contrary, it seems that OP was going out of his way to explain that it's acceptable to have initially hated CS.

If CS is actually terrible, why don't we talk about what actually makes it terrible? I can't comprehend the notion that evaluating the advocates of X will demonstrate anything concrete about X.

I can't fault you for that, and I could probably learn a thing or two from writing more freely.

I mostly enjoyed the slides, and I'm interested in CoffeeScript, especially since I'm going to be working a little in Node in the near future. This post is a critique on the blog post, rather than on the slide content, which was more or less fine.

Too much focus placed on how those who dislike it haven't given it a proper shot. This could be true, but six paragraphs is overkill. You make a few points: A) they aren't being open-minded enough, B) they are the typical blub programmer, and C) they shouldn't feel bad because it's perfectly understandable to do something so mundane. Had I been someone who had spent a few hours toying with CS and left unconvinced, you'd have lost me pretty quickly.

You mention that you hated it too, at first, but not early enough. I'd submit that you're far more likely to lose readership than to open eyes with this method.

Also, as someone who isn't particularly set against CS, I didn't enjoy reading so much about how I shouldn't feel bad for hating CS at first sight. I didn't.

It is, or was, 500 points.

For a long time, I avoided capitals in exactly this way. It wasn't as negative as the reasons you've suggested. I figured that capitals were unnecessary for parsing because I didn't have difficulty reading my own writing without them. It wasn't until I began writing in larger paragraphs that I noticed what you've said here—that capitals do actually count in terms of speed.

I wouldn't be so quick to attribute this to arrogance or nonconformity. I noted that the brevity of individual paragraphs is similar to the way I had been writing. Mixed with the font, which does make it easier to catch the beginnings of sentences, it's entirely possible that he's making exactly the same mistake I made in exactly the way I made it—such that he hasn't yet noticed it does have an impact on reading speed.

Edit: Some of the other comments take a similar view, so I do want to point out that I may lack context. I don't use GNOME and I'm not particularly well-informed on the subject. My comment refers only to the lack of capitals and an anecdote about my own experience with avoiding capitals.

As mentioned by one of the other replies, it comes from "to prick" in Old French, so the usage you're seeing—Profoundly moving; touching—seems to align with that fairly well, at a glance.

This isn't snark. I legitimately tried explaining in my own words. I wasn't satisfied, so: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poignant

No. Google supports Chromium, and Chrome has proprietary additions.

I do wish Chrome didn't exist, but I'm not convinced that this comparison works.

The parent seems more like a comment on the reaction to the study rather than on the validity of the study.

I don't think he means that it's rarely used so much as it's done rarely by the user. When visiting a project page, users likely won't need to clone as often as they'll need to do various other things on a page.