[drinkjuice]

> I'd guess it's because most users would have no idea what to choose

Sounds like you could kill two birds with one stone: allow a non-lame web and encourage users to learn what that means. We can't complain about tech illiterate users with one corner of the mouth and then make them decide what goes with the other.

> if you add more text to explain it, most users will not read it

They're not users. They're the blight on the back of users. Why cater to them? Is someone who looks left and right before crossing the street a "power pedestrian", too?

"This tab wants to use a lot of [RAM/CPU/GPU] while it is in the background, is that cool with you?

If you don't know what this means, it's best to select no. Fuck that site anyway for using a lot of resources without making it obvious that it's doing something heavy, or asking first, or explaining what is going on. If they don't like users clicking no or even navigating away from the page, that's their problem. If you read this far, click here to claim your Avid Reader Achievement Trophy."

Not bad for a first draft?

[gr3yh47]

> They're not users. They're the blight on the back of users. Why cater to them?

actually they are about 90%+ of users

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/

[drinkjuice]

Fine, and most "webmasters" are really just hack frauds. On my planet, it's their job to get a room and ours to burn it.

edit: Usage implies intentionality. Intentionality implies awareness. Not being some super guru, but more awareness than "is text, won't read". Therefore, while the drive to shovel hardware on people, to create needs you then get to fill, did indeed bring all sorts of people who now get called users to the table, I don't consider them such. It's like someone who has a seizure on dance floor is not dancing, or like someone you forced to be somewhere is not "visiting that place". And I know people don't find it rude to just ignore a claim of how something ought to be with "but this is how it is, which is why it can and must be that way", which is why I say what I say. If someone does bad things and won't discuss them, it's absolutely up to the people who are aware and care to act. If you don't understand poetic language unless it's flowery that's your problem. So yes, I stand by what I said, just not by what it might evoke in the minds of some readers.

[jamesgeck0]

This sounds a lot like the arguments in the 80s about how GUIs were bad because they let anyone use a computer. Empathy makes it easier to write good software.