[catapart]

Yes, a well tested and well researched opinion. Just like I'm sure your opinion was.

The difference is, I didn't say "Here's a better UX". I said "This is an appropriate use for the UX". I didn't back it up with testing because I wasn't saying anything that needed backing up. I wasn't making a value statement, or insisting on a quality of the UX; I just said that toasts were appropriate for certain functions - not that there was no better way to handle the UX.

You, on the other hand, absolutely did make a value judgement. You said "better". And okay! I'm fine with you having a better UX! I'd love to know more! Please, provide any information you have on why yours is better!

If you need more help deciphering the difference: I was arguing against the blog author's EXCLUSIVE argument ("actually, this is appropriate, so it's not that toasts are NEVER good UX"). You are arguing for your own EXCLUSIVE argument ("the good things about this way aren't available with your way"). If you don't understand why exclusive arguments merit more evidence than arguments for maintaining inclusion (as opposed to changing to be more inclusive), I'd recommend boning up on formal logic.

[roninorder]

This is not a formal argument, it's a thread on a discussion forum.

If value judgments trigger you so severely, it could be healthier to log off and read a book instead.

In an informal conversation, it's common to voice an opinion and present an argument. It's also common for other participants to disagree and voice a different opinion.

Informal conversations can actually be wonderul, you should try!

[catapart]

lol I can't tell if you actually believe that I'm somehow hyper-focused on this because I was able to scrawl out two paragraphs, or if you're just deflecting, but either way it's pretty funny!

I said a thing. You said a thing. I gave you honest and apathetic feedback. You're the one that got defensive about that. You could have left it there; you could have said "oh, I've got nothing formal, I'm just talking about case X, Y, and Z, as brought up in article W."; you could have done anything other than take it hard. Instead you got pissy about me not caring about your unsupported opinion (I make no value judgement on whether it's actually good or bad; just that it's unsupported).

I'm sorry that my immediate response, in informal conversation, is less charitable than you prefer. I don't have any interest in arguing about stuff that has accessible points of well-supported data. I prefer to argue about stuff like art and flavor and preference and anything that doesn't have some reference-able data to make one side or the other impractical to support. If you want to talk movies, or games, or food, I'm happy to volley back and forth about the "better" and "worse" things. But if you want to "argue" that you know of a way for me to do my job "better", I cannot stress this enough: I would LOVE to see your data. Because it will help me do my job better. It's not facetious; it's not smug; it's not a spit in your face. It's an honest offer for you to either provide something that does what you say (at least in your opinion!), or to leave this topic with me. There's nothing tempermental or nuerotically formalized about politely offering a path for the conversation, should it continue. You should try just ignoring the path if you don't want to walk down it.

[roninorder]

You got it backwards. There is no way to argue about what music is "better". Or at least no productive way to do that.

When talking about UX, I am expressing an opinion based both on my experience as an engineer and as a user. In this case, I can state that something is better, at least in the sense that it's a more intuitive and an effective pattern.

If judgments like that trigger you - that's ok, I don't have to meet some unexpressed level of data-supported evidence.

> There's nothing tempermental or nuerotically formalized about politely offering a path for the conversation

Re-read your responses and imagine talking to someone in person with this level of nit-picking and animosity.

“You’re not wrong, Walter..." and so on.

[catapart]

lol