1. 15

    As much as I’ve loved much of jwz’s previous work, to me this is so clearly a UX fail that I’m kinda sad he doesn’t realize he’s the problem here :(

    Sure there is lots of buttons here. But what happens:

    • When I click the “Reserved Seating: $25” button? Do I get those 2 tickets entered in the text field to the left? Or do I get the 1 general admin ticket too? Should I change that number to a zero first just to be sure? Why else would those form fields be grouped separately from the test of the inputs? Maybe he expects me to check the HTML source first just to see what elements the <form> tag wraps?
    • What happens if I’m buying tickets for friends too, but they need seating I and I want to be down in general admin? Can I do that? Appears no if I assume the result of the clicking a button from the previous gets me only that type of ticket. Doesn’t seem completely unreasonable given someone is looking for an “Add to cart” button that they might potentially be looking to by multiple tickets of differing types. What does seem unreasonable is that you’d expect them to remove themselves from their own personal context and instead consider that you’ve decided to implement a purchasing system that allows 1 type of ticket purchase. Or that asking for help in taking their money is too hard.
    • Why are you confusing matters more by suggesting I RSVP and do a bunch of other social crap before I’ve even bought my tickets?

    You can’t have it both ways. Conventions are more than just using <button> and <submit> tags, they’re adhering to expectations people have from years of learned history on how these things are meant to work.

    1. 12

      Please always consider that this blog post is written by a person that can actually spend a week drinking after being fired and then some to search for a new job.

      Which doesn’t make it a bad post, I think it’s good that people of all experiences write them down.

      1. 7

        Please always consider that this blog post is written by a person that can actually spend a week drinking after being fired and then some to search for a new job.

        I feel that this comment is fairly morally judgmental. I took the piece to be more of an expression of a fear-turned-reality that many in our profession can relate to. If the post were written by someone who spoke of spending a week surrounded by family, I think it would be pretty strange to say “Please always consider that this blog post is written by a person that can actually spend a week with family after being fired and then some to search for a new job.”

        1. 6

          You’re interpreting, but yes, it can be read like this. My point is, though, that many don’t have the luxury to take a week of for whatever they want after being fired - be it the bar or the family.

          1. 3

            I still don’t get the point. Many of us don’t have the luxury of having a job in the first place. And it can get worse. Many of us don’t have the luxury of counting on food to be available for us to eat tomorrow. Are we supposed to be fill up discussions with constant reminders that there is always someone else in the world that has it worse?

            1. 3

              My point is that the whole blog post crumbles if this security is not there.

              And yes, I have no problems with constant reminders.

              1. 1

                Everything crumbles if humans can’t rise above the basic security of reasonably assured nourishment for the immediate future. This includes the existence of the Internet itself.

                1. 2

                  Any statement can be turned into the absurd by widening it and I have no intention to continue in this direction.

                  My statement was about people being fired from a fancy job, writing a blog post about it and how their conclusions come out of their special position. No more, no less. Please stick to it.

                  1. 3

                    OK. Then my statement is that the exact same line of reasoning that you employed can be used about anything—the only differences are purely relative. In other words, it’s absurd to point it out because the very act of pointing it out on an Internet forum requires the same philosophical assumption: you are fortunate to have access to a fancy Internet connection and the free time to worry about such things. If only everyone could have those problems!

        2. 3

          Normally you’re offered severance pay, so most people actually can afford to sit around for a week (or a month). Being fired is an emotionally exhausting experience. You really need to take some time off before looking for the next thing. But it can also be a great turning point if you give yourself time to recoup.

          1. [Comment removed by author]

            1. 5

              No I’m not getting confused. Severance is pretty normal in the US. I don’t think it’s required, but it would be considered pretty awful if the company never offered any sort of severance. It’s often accompanied by some papers that you have to sign that make you promise to not slander the company, etc. Seeing as he’s not slandering Github, I bet he got severance ;)

              1. [Comment removed by author]

                1. 3

                  I know some people who were fired, but nevertheless received severance to go away quietly. Despite CA being at will, employees can cause trouble through arbitration, etc.

                  1. 1

                    While technically there is a distinct difference between the two, in practice I think there’s some fuzziness. I think the fuzziness arises from the fact that sometimes people who are fired for poor performance, rather than as a side-effect of organizational restructuring, are also given severance.

                    1. 1

                      Seems to be becoming more common, irrespective of the situation, to receive severance in return for signing a non-disparagement agreement on departure. At least with the handful of startups in the Bay Area that I’ve any knowledge of.