A thoughtful businessperson might view a lack of access for the less affluent as a reputation risk with their core audience at the margin. Lazier managers might need more convincing that turning the front door of their virtual storefront into a gauntlet is a bad idea...
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
So let's review how businesses make money: they pick a strategy, market segment, and sell into it w/ an expected margin. Not all business are the same! Some go for reach over price ("make it up in volume"). There are more of these, and they move more volume.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
Any reach business should reject JS-first out of hand. That is *most businesses*. But let's say that's not our market. We're selling, IDK, Prada handbags or something.
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
This sort of firm sells aspiration. They'll make their highest margins on ultra-luxury goods, but most of *their* volume will also be somewhat down-market. What they care about most is margin. A $50 trinket with 40% gross margin is still a winner. So who is that marginal buyer?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
And would a good manager want to lose those sales? (in this scenario, it's "maybe")
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
There's a lot of strategy, growth projection work, and brand identity wrapped up in answering this. But we don't need to do that work. In basically zero of the teams I've worked with has there *ever* been a hard tradeoff. *NOBODY* is anywhere *near* the richness/reach frontier.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
In every single case, doing better for everyone does better for the business. Why? Doesn't actually matter. Could be marginal buyer. Could be better service to core market. Does. Not. Matter. The idea we need all this script to deliver richness is a straight-up lie.
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
So who's lying and why? Well, some folks honestly believe this tosh. They've been sold a bill of goods and I feel sorry for the users they're trying to reach. Some are leaning into their priors and are afraid to admit the mountain of evidence that shows lowered lifetime value.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
That is, very few folks waving the JS flag want to ever talk about or describe the remediation journeys I see so many of. I tip my cap to Aldo for coming (sort of) clean on the work required once you've persistently destroyed your UX with "modern" frontend.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
*some* folks -- the really dangerous ones -- lie by omission. They'll say "X works for us here at BigCo" without describing necessary lateral investments: perf teams, CIs, size/latency budgets, deep analysis pipelines...and totally separate desktop/mobile/"lite" versions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
If they, instead, said "with the appropriate guardrails, X works for us in reaching a subset of our users", it'd be a less compelling sell. Their OSS careers might be hurt. Their tools might not "win". But they'd sleep better, I reckon.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @SlexAxton
The JS community seems to (want to be seen to) care about every sort of diversity except delivering experiences to a diverse set of users. The disconnect turns my stomach.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.