Top products from r/announcements

> Am I to infer that companies mostly care about it for PR reasons?

Legal, actually. If your work is an education, or heathcare, or any number of other things, the ADA can require you to be accessible. But, most consumer websites are pretty bad about accessibility. I consider usability and accessibility to be distinct, definitely similar, but usability is about patterns and accessibility is.. well, also about patterns, but has a lot more of a code component to it.

In theory, a website who's content is contained in well structured HTML should be fairly accessible by default, at least by technologies like screen readers. You run into trouble in style, things like colors in particular. Use colors to convey meaning in a way where the meaning is lost on a black and white color scheme? Inaccessible. Use text colors on backgrounds that don't have a high enough contrast ratio for things like buttons? Inaccessible. Those are the kinds of things someone who designs for some kinds of fields have to deal with, but the folks at Reddit don't really have to concern themselves with. If they do, it's out of PR, or ethics.

The 90/5/5 rule isn't a hard and fast one, but within the subject of accessibility it is just a reapplication. You might say accessibility targets the 90 percent of users in the middle of some imaginary impairment spectrum. The point of the 90/5/5 rule is really more philosophic than mathamatic: It is basically saying you will never design a system that works for literally everyone. Never.

On this second point, one thing I have to point out immediately is that usability studies are primarily industry-driven. Usability standards and research academically was big in the 1980s, but the academic side of HCI has moved on from "quaint" notions like usability. It is the industry, no academia, that drives that now. The sources I posted for instance, are industry sources, one of them, Nielson-Norman Group, gets paid ungodly sums of money to do usability audits of commercial websites.

The truth is people's preferences are not based on usability, they're based on affect. There's a great, groundbreaking book on this that if you're truly interested in you should read, called Emotional Design: Why we Love or Hate Everyday Things. The author, Don Norman, is the "Norman" in Nielson-Norman Group. Here's a big takeaway, if someone loves or hates software, or any tool, is often not based on how usable it is. People don't make those kinds of decisions on logic, they make them on emotion.

Good UX work should include the affective nature of design. It isn't pure science, it shouldn't treat people like robots, and it should acknowledge that people's preferences are non-scientific and should be accounted for in an emotional way. But, that's not usability. Usability is the more scientific side of UX, the part the measures how well something works. Probably the reason I've gotten so much flak for daring to stand up for any aspect of the reddit redesign is that I'm defending it's usability, which has nothing to do with its likeability. A distinction that is second nature to me, because I'm a professional in this field, but obviously is not to others.

My point is, and has been from the beginning, the new reddit design is not unusable. In fact, it likely is more usable than the original reddit design. People hating it is not based on its usability.

Hi guys,I would recommend a great solar lights seller on Amazon I have bought and used for years since It is time to get new beautiful solar lights for your yard.

​

Here is Solar yard lights I like best: https://www.amazon.com/Decorative-Decorations-Landscape-Lighting-Stainless/dp/B07Q3VCF13/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=solar+yard+lights&m=A39PH15OSSYYUG&qid=1557540592&s=merchant-items&sr=1-1

Hi guys,I would recommend a great solar lights seller on Amazon I have bought and used for years since It is time to get new beautiful solar lights for your yard. The seller is also a 15 years solar lighting manufacturer. Here is a link for you of this Best Solar Lights Collection Storefront:

​

Here is one Solar spot lights outdoor I like best: https://www.amazon.com/Spotlight-Spotlights-Waterproof-Lighting-Landscape/dp/B01MAYGBRI/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=solar+spot+lights+outdoor&m=A39PH15OSSYYUG&qid=1555904753&s=merchant-items&sr=1-1-fkmrnull

Hi guys, I would recommend a Solar garden lights seller on Amazon I have bought and used for years since It is time to get new beautiful solar lights for your yard. The seller is also a 15 years solar lighting manufacturer.

Here is a one of beautiful Solar jar lights I like best: https://www.amazon.com/Decorative-Landscape-Lighting-Driveway-Decorations/dp/B07QLHN4B8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=solar+garden+lights&m=A39PH15OSSYYUG&qid=1569980962&s=merchant-items&sr=1-1

> You don't go to court over cases that are "incredibly difficult to prove" unless you're throwing a hail mary (aka, frivolous) because lawyers cost money. A lot of money.

And that's not what Frivolous means in that context(Fun facts - Frivolous has a specific legal definition, and it doesn't mean "A hail mary"), and it's actually the case that pretty much all cases of sexual discrimination in the workplace are incredibly difficult to prove, for a number of reasons that I'm not going to go into here.

Partially because it would take a stupid amount of time, partially because honestly I'm not sure it's worth the time to explain when others who know far more than me have done it much better.


(Excerpted from this book by Caroline Fredrickeson, the director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative office, and previously general counsel and legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, considered one of the foremost legal experts on Anti-discrimination laws and discrimination cases. Strong recommendation from me, Worth the read if you're interested in this sort of thing, but honestly I'm pretty sure you're not.)

So, TL:DR, yeah, nah.

This is part of the basic premise of the new book Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter, by Scott Adams. It's essentially making a strong argument that politics is dominated by people who cannot see their own biases and therefore facts don't matter to them, and why/how Trump's persuasiveness was so effective at convincing the small percentage of the population that's open to both sides to vote for him. It's not about his lies, all politicians lie, but it's his unique technique and skill in communication.

That book literally sources Ukranian nazi collaborators as outlined in this book

https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Lies-Evidence-Accusation-Bloodlands/dp/0692200991

What the fuck is this? So If I post a link to a product, it redirects my link to whatever you want?

I'm so confused. If I type

>Hey guys I just bought these new acu pants by propper


It will pop up in a thread/comment like:

>Hey guys I just bought these new acu pants by propper

Do I understand it correctly?

Ill get her a fry daddy instead.

Back the fuck up.

Just so I'm clear, if I post something with an affiliate link, I get shadow-banned for spamming Reddit but when you do it, it's a new revenue model?

Am I missing something here? Is this new? Are you officially saying that Reddit users may now add an affiliate code to anything they link?

In the 5 years since my book came out, it has been linked countless times on Reddit. I can only imagine how much affiliate money I would have made by putting a little code after that and raking in the phat dough.

BRB, adding affiliate links to ALL THE THINGS!

EDIT:

Just to be clear, if I link my book like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Warlizard-Chronicles-Adventures-Vodka-Women/dp/0615461875?ie=UTF8&creativeASIN=0615461875&linkCode=w00&linkId=a17fd354f33b5cbdd0411289137ec0ab&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=warlizard-20

then nothing will be changed but if I just link it like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Warlizard-Chronicles-Adventures-Vodka-Women/dp/0615461875

Then your software will add in a Reddit affiliate link to it and you guys will get the revenue?

Just trying to clarify. I can't see any way this could be abused at all.

Oh, and here's my book, one more time, with affiliate link added, just so people can see an example of how this works:

http://www.amazon.com/Warlizard-Chronicles-Adventures-Vodka-Women/dp/0615461875?ie=UTF8&creativeASIN=0615461875&linkCode=w00&linkId=a17fd354f33b5cbdd0411289137ec0ab&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=warlizard-20

I hate to tell you but…

And you said:

Laser sights

Scopes

And "assault rifle additions"

Were all somehow federally regulated. You are wrong about that.

> Simply owning a destructive device described in it is a "Federal crime of violence".

Umm... citation? Please cite the specific section that says this, since I am not finding anything that confirms this.

But even if you can cite it, you are still wrong. No one said anything about owning an explosive. The question was explicitly about teaching, not about owning. The citation you gave was about teaching. You then claimed that "intent doesn't matter", when the very citation you gave explicitly says intent matters.

> Therefore, any audience viewing and using the tutorial to make a destructive device is committing a "Federal crime of violence".

This is just laughably absurd. Do you really not think I could make a tutorial without actually owning a bomb? You have never seen a recipe? A written tutorial? Hell, even if I taught you in person and walked you through the process, I could do so using fake ingredients.

> And, therefore, you would be in violation of the law knowing the information you provided was used to create said destructive device.

You have never learned something simply for the sake of curiosity? I have watched videos and read tutorials on many things that I will likely never do.

> It's a whole lot of cyclical lawyer speak basically making anything about bomb making illegal.

I think it is safe to assume that you are not a lawyer?

Simply providing the information DOES NOT show intent.

> It would be easier for the Federal government to prove you provided the education knowing someone out there would use it illegally than it would be for you to prove you knew every single person that obtained the information would not use it illegally.

Yes... Which is why if the intent did not matter they would not explicitly write it into the law that it does.

Your argument is just incredibly stupid. It literally makes no sense at all for them to include two very specific clauses about intent if they mean it to apply universally. They would only be providing a possible loophole that people could get out of.

And of course if you are right, then Amazon is very publicly in violation of federal law.