Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

Rollback to Revision 1
Source Link
Mechanical snail
Mechanical snail
  • 10.1k
  • 3
  • 48
  • 65

I understand the desire to educate, but there isthere's something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

I understand the desire to educate, but there is something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

I understand the desire to educate, but there's something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

made small edit to fix typo
Source Link
jmort253
jmort253
  • 31.9k
  • 8
  • 82
  • 137

I understand the desire to educate, but there'sthere is something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

I understand the desire to educate, but there's something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

I understand the desire to educate, but there is something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.

Source Link
Jeff Atwood
Jeff Atwood
  • 310.6k
  • 107
  • 887
  • 1.2k

I understand the desire to educate, but there's something deeply wrong about the proposed design.

The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the most obtrusive way we can:

You've done something wrong. Click here to learn why you suck.

You should only send the user obtrusive 'in-your-face' messages about how awesome they are.

Messages about non-awesomeness should always be delivered quietly, via a backchannel, in a way that minimizes their impact. Otherwise, we're slapping them in the face.