|
|
|
|
|
|
by pmarreck
1131 days ago
|
|
|
A UI/UX designer wrote the code. Now I’m not saying coding is rocket science (because it isn't), but there are certain types of people who are a little (too?) obsessed with thinking of ways their logic can break and covering it with checks and tests… I'm guessing that designers are less likely to be one of those. I love designers, btw. I think UI/UX is a hugely underrated discipline (see: "dark patterns", designing for safety). But unless you stare at logic all day, the implications of a code change like this might not immediately strike you as a risk. |
|
|
But my issues with this aren't really related to code: * downloading without user 'consent' (in the loosest sense of the word) * and mainly: a proposed fix being a way the server can force an update on the user.
This whole issue just stems from the unreasonably high update-frequency imposed by the developer. They aren't addressing that and instead conclude that perhaps they can avoid a high bill by building remote code-execution into their app. As opposed to just adding a toggle and letting users decide whether they want updates to be auto downloaded. I would argue that's more of a UI/UX issue than a coding issue.