We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
2 Fixed typos
source | link

This has been kind of a difficult issue for me, because it's the first large-scale change by Stack Exchange I've mostly opposed in my four years here, and it affects all the sites on the network. I was surprised to discover just how much I care about a little robot who lives on the side of a webpage, unnoticed by most users. And I've spent plenty of time arguing for why that robot means a lot to Worldbuilding, and the symbolism behind it.

I would be very, very proud if Worldbuilding got up in arms about the new design we're likely to have, but I would be very, very annoyed if the community did it unconstructively. I think we the mods find it easier to not get as annoyed because we've interacted with the Team a lot, and have a pretty good relationship with y'all. And even with things like this, that experience means I trust you when you talk about what you're trying to do and what your rationale is behind it. I know normal users don't have that kind of relationship or trust.

Now . . . the main point of this answer is to perhaps ask for some more communication and rationale behind certain changes, as has already been suggested, but for a different reason: Many of us on the network have no idea what this behind-the-scenes design process looks like, how it works, or what sort of changes are feasible. I have some very, very basic HTML and CSS experience, but no idea to tell whether a design change is easy or impossible. That's slightly frustrating. So when it's said that certain changes will make bug fixing easier and stuff - well, I accept that on a high level, again partly because I trust y'all, but I'm making that decision based on trust. I have no idea why those things are true.

I think that has frustrated some people; we can't see what's going on behind the scenes, and maybe we simply don't understand a lot of it anyway. Therefore, it's not easy to see what feedback is being taken into account, what the relationship is between what we say and what's done, whether suggestions are feasible, and, more importantly, why something cannot be done. So I guess I'm like a little kid giving his parents the old "But why, Mommy?" when asked why I have to eat my spinach, because I don't know how nutrition works.

Long story short . . . I think some of the current - and especially future - outrage could be tempered with a more detailed explanation of the above: why certain things are or aren't possible. That way, when someone says that the voting buttons have to be standardized, we all understand why. We're not taking it purely on trust.

Oh, and yes, some of the criticism has been way out of line. Way out of line. I'm not pleased with what I'm seeing. Making ad-hominem attacks at employees who are just doing their jobs is . . . embarrassing and shameful. I'll say that I don't like the designs, but I'll also say that I don't like that style of feedback.

This has been kind of a difficult issue for me, because it's the first large-scale change by Stack Exchange I've mostly opposed in my four years here, and it affects all the sites on the network. I was surprised to discover just how much I care about a little robot who lives on the side of a webpage, unnoticed by most users. And I've spent plenty of time arguing for why that robot means a lot to Worldbuilding, and the symbolism behind it.

I would be very, very proud if Worldbuilding got up in arms about the new design we're likely to have, but I would very, very annoyed if the community did it unconstructively. I think we the mods find it easier to not get as annoyed because we've interacted with the Team a lot, and have a pretty good relationship with y'all. And even with things like this, that experience means I trust you when you talk about what you're trying to do and what your rationale is behind it. I know normal users don't have that kind of relationship or trust.

Now . . . the main point of this answer is to perhaps ask for some more communication and rationale behind certain changes, as has already been suggested, but for a different reason: Many of on the network have no idea what this behind-the-scenes design process looks like, how it works, or what sort of changes are feasible. I have some very, very basic HTML and CSS experience, but no idea to tell whether a design change is easy or impossible. That's slightly frustrating. So when it's said that certain changes will make bug fixing easier and stuff - well, I accept that on a high level, again partly because I trust y'all, but I'm making that decision based on trust. I have no idea why those things are true.

I think that has frustrated some people; we can't see what's going on behind the scenes, and maybe we simply don't understand a lot of it anyway. Therefore, it's not easy to see what feedback is being taken into account, what the relationship is between what we say and what's done, whether suggestions are feasible, and, more importantly, why something cannot be done. So I guess I'm like a little kid giving his parents the old "But why, Mommy?" when asked why I have to eat my spinach, because I don't know how nutrition works.

Long story short . . . I think some of the current - and especially future - outrage could be tempered with a more detailed explanation of the above: why certain things are or aren't possible. That way, when someone says that the voting buttons have to be standardized, we all understand why. We're not taking it purely on trust.

Oh, and yes, some of the criticism has been way out of line. Way out of line. I'm not pleased with what I'm seeing. Making ad-hominem attacks at employees who are just doing their jobs is . . . embarrassing and shameful. I'll say that I don't like the designs, but I'll also say that I don't like that style of feedback.

This has been kind of a difficult issue for me, because it's the first large-scale change by Stack Exchange I've mostly opposed in my four years here, and it affects all the sites on the network. I was surprised to discover just how much I care about a little robot who lives on the side of a webpage, unnoticed by most users. And I've spent plenty of time arguing for why that robot means a lot to Worldbuilding, and the symbolism behind it.

I would be very, very proud if Worldbuilding got up in arms about the new design we're likely to have, but I would be very, very annoyed if the community did it unconstructively. I think we the mods find it easier to not get as annoyed because we've interacted with the Team a lot, and have a pretty good relationship with y'all. And even with things like this, that experience means I trust you when you talk about what you're trying to do and what your rationale is behind it. I know normal users don't have that kind of relationship or trust.

Now . . . the main point of this answer is to perhaps ask for some more communication and rationale behind certain changes, as has already been suggested, but for a different reason: Many of us on the network have no idea what this behind-the-scenes design process looks like, how it works, or what sort of changes are feasible. I have some very, very basic HTML and CSS experience, but no idea to tell whether a design change is easy or impossible. That's slightly frustrating. So when it's said that certain changes will make bug fixing easier and stuff - well, I accept that on a high level, again partly because I trust y'all, but I'm making that decision based on trust. I have no idea why those things are true.

I think that has frustrated some people; we can't see what's going on behind the scenes, and maybe we simply don't understand a lot of it anyway. Therefore, it's not easy to see what feedback is being taken into account, what the relationship is between what we say and what's done, whether suggestions are feasible, and, more importantly, why something cannot be done. So I guess I'm like a little kid giving his parents the old "But why, Mommy?" when asked why I have to eat my spinach, because I don't know how nutrition works.

Long story short . . . I think some of the current - and especially future - outrage could be tempered with a more detailed explanation of the above: why certain things are or aren't possible. That way, when someone says that the voting buttons have to be standardized, we all understand why. We're not taking it purely on trust.

Oh, and yes, some of the criticism has been way out of line. Way out of line. I'm not pleased with what I'm seeing. Making ad-hominem attacks at employees who are just doing their jobs is . . . embarrassing and shameful. I'll say that I don't like the designs, but I'll also say that I don't like that style of feedback.

1
source | link

This has been kind of a difficult issue for me, because it's the first large-scale change by Stack Exchange I've mostly opposed in my four years here, and it affects all the sites on the network. I was surprised to discover just how much I care about a little robot who lives on the side of a webpage, unnoticed by most users. And I've spent plenty of time arguing for why that robot means a lot to Worldbuilding, and the symbolism behind it.

I would be very, very proud if Worldbuilding got up in arms about the new design we're likely to have, but I would very, very annoyed if the community did it unconstructively. I think we the mods find it easier to not get as annoyed because we've interacted with the Team a lot, and have a pretty good relationship with y'all. And even with things like this, that experience means I trust you when you talk about what you're trying to do and what your rationale is behind it. I know normal users don't have that kind of relationship or trust.

Now . . . the main point of this answer is to perhaps ask for some more communication and rationale behind certain changes, as has already been suggested, but for a different reason: Many of on the network have no idea what this behind-the-scenes design process looks like, how it works, or what sort of changes are feasible. I have some very, very basic HTML and CSS experience, but no idea to tell whether a design change is easy or impossible. That's slightly frustrating. So when it's said that certain changes will make bug fixing easier and stuff - well, I accept that on a high level, again partly because I trust y'all, but I'm making that decision based on trust. I have no idea why those things are true.

I think that has frustrated some people; we can't see what's going on behind the scenes, and maybe we simply don't understand a lot of it anyway. Therefore, it's not easy to see what feedback is being taken into account, what the relationship is between what we say and what's done, whether suggestions are feasible, and, more importantly, why something cannot be done. So I guess I'm like a little kid giving his parents the old "But why, Mommy?" when asked why I have to eat my spinach, because I don't know how nutrition works.

Long story short . . . I think some of the current - and especially future - outrage could be tempered with a more detailed explanation of the above: why certain things are or aren't possible. That way, when someone says that the voting buttons have to be standardized, we all understand why. We're not taking it purely on trust.

Oh, and yes, some of the criticism has been way out of line. Way out of line. I'm not pleased with what I'm seeing. Making ad-hominem attacks at employees who are just doing their jobs is . . . embarrassing and shameful. I'll say that I don't like the designs, but I'll also say that I don't like that style of feedback.