From: commodorejohn@gmail.com
On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 21:45:34 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> > *A.* that's not what a straw-man argument is ...
> > ... Obviously, having trouble with a misbehaving website is a
> > smaller thing than burning to death in a badly-renovated apartment
> > building.
>
> You say no, and then you say yes.
A straw-man argument is, to quote Wikipedia, "the informal fallacy of
refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion,
while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction." Shoddy work-
manship (in apartment renovation) is a *smaller* thing than shoddy
workmanship (in web design,) but not, fundamentally, a *different* one.
> See, conflating opinions on aesthetics with issues of “workmanship”
> (quality of product) is another strawman.
Both aesthetics and functionality have been points of discussion in
this thread; I've been focusing primarily on the latter, though I do
maintain that bad design patterns employed in pursuit of aesthetics
often have functional impacts as well.
F'rexample, there are major websites where key layout and navigation
buttons are positioned off-screen depending on your resolution - not
even on, like, an ancient 640x480 display, but on *anything* smaller
than 1920x1080. That kind of design philosophy should've died with the
|
