[groby_b]

Uh.

If I search for textarea and BiDi text, in pretty much all variations I can think of https://www.w3.org/International/talks/1602-oman is one of the top links.

And right in there, the "What if you don't know the direction in advance" section, https://www.w3.org/International/talks/1602-oman/#advance

I assume the problem is that the author doesn't really know the space, and so didn't even know that "BiDi" is the right search term here. (For "bi-directional text", since you don't want to specify a writing direction)

I don't even fault them for thinking "the results are wrong" - they aren't, if you search for RTL they're the right answer. But you won't know that until you know the space a bit better. This highlights a problem with relying on the Internet for answers - it doesn't know what you don't know. Sit down with anybody who's dealt with BiDi for a while, and one of their first questions will be "Do you mean RTL or BiDi"?

So, if you can, ask people, not software. Especially if you don't know the space.

[scrozier]

Instead of gatekeeping "the space" with insider abbreviations and belittling the author, you could appreciate that they raised awareness of the issue.

[zlg_codes]

At what point is someone 'allowed' to criticize an author's approach and point out another that would have made their struggle shorter?

Accusations of gatekeeping should be accompanied with evidence of malice if they are to be taken seriously. Correcting (or, more like augmenting) someone speaking authoritatively on something is not gatekeeping. Also, gatekeeping has a social value, when used at the right time in the right circumstances. Bouncers literally keep the gate at a venue. Relevant experience in a given field is often necessary to have high-level (or in-depth) conversations about something within said field. If you have a group of people comparing sorting algorithms and some dude rolls up to offer his opinion without even understanding what a sorting algorithm is, would you 'appreciate' their uninformed and uninsightful take on something, lacking the shared knowledge of your group? Or would you rather clarify where the guy is wrong, refer him to a resource, and tell him to come back when he knows a bit more about what he's talking about?

Don't get hung up on details here. It's not about sorting algorithms. It's about 'deep knowledge' in a field needing to be shared to elevate discussion, for lack of a better descriptor.

Gatekeeping becomes a problem when it's mean, when it isn't helping anyone learn more, and when it's not protecting a culture or improving discussion in any meaningful way. Helping newbies learn from better sources is arguably gatekeeping -- it's just not considered harmful.

Now if we could do something about baseless accusations...

[scrozier]

Here's another way groby_b could have said the same thing:

"I spend a lot of time designing UI for international users. In these circles, the issue you're talking about is referred to as 'BiDi' text input. If you would like to know more, ping me! Sometimes Googling isn't fruitful if you don't already know the lingo."

Maybe this sounds better to you, too. If not, maybe I'm wrong. It happens a lot. :-)

[groby_b]

I am not "gatekeeping", I'm telling you that in spaces you don't know there's hidden complexity, and you shouldn't rely on the Internet.

No amount of "awareness" is taking that away.

Also, please tell me where I "belittled" the author.

[jholman]

Yeah, I agree (with you) that your top-level comment is very very correct, and contributes a fantastic point.

And I agree (with some commenters) that the "Uh" makes it look way worse than it would otherwise. :) I learned something from both your comment and from the criticisms. Yay.

--

Though I think "you shouldn't rely on the Internet" is not quite summarizing it exactly correctly (not a complaint about the original comment, just trying to improve on the summary). It's not "relying on the internet" that's the problem, it's some weird conjunction of a few things that are each fine. I will try to expand, fumblingly.

(1) Obviously you could have a conversation with an expert-in-the-space over the internet, so clearly it's not the internet that's the problem. (2) Obviously you can get good results off Google, for example by googling "textarea bidi", so it's not Google that's the problem. And, heck it, compared to not having an internet to search, the internet does a lot to reveal the hidden complexity that we wouldn't otherwise even be aware of.

So we could propose that the problem is non-experts doing things (i.e. we could encourage gatekeeping), but wait, that's not right either, because that would imply that Mo shouldn't have created Standard Notes until they were an expert in all relevant things (which turns out to include something something multilingual something), and clearly if Standard Notes wasn't delivering great value without that expertise, then they wouldn't be getting "requests to add right to left language support". So obviously Mo had more than enough expertise to do what they did.

I dunno. I dunno what the pithy version of the takeaway could be. We might just have to settle with the longer version from your original comment.

"[Neither you, nor google, knows] what you don't know. ... So, if you can, ask people, not software. Especially if you don't know the space."

[scrozier]

I think it was the "uh." :-) If I read it without it, it's not so bad. And I know we all dash off comments quickly sometimes. Apologies if I overreacted.

[dpkirchner]

Uh.

It was probably the uh. I don't fault you for thinking it might be something else.

[groby_b]

I honestly had no idea what it was, so thanks for the explanation. Wish I'd gotten your reply sooner, because I'd just have taken it it out.

[beebeepka]

It's a shame your post got downvoted. Sometimes I don't get the HN mob. I have no idea what groby_b is talking about