There is no ambiguity that needs further clarification, I am talking about the words as written. Their entire message clearly conveys they believe there is an objective design standard that everyone should strive to adhere to, and they are criticising a website for daring to deviate from their ideal standard as though it were an objective flaw and not a matter of personal preference.
> getting upset over blatantly subjective matters being discussed with zero cushioning like this, then I'm doing little more than intentionally misreading the other person until I upset myself. You're reacting to the smoke, not the fire.
It's not about cushioning. They are explicitly criticising the website ("pity", "forgot to take basic principles into account"), and saying broadly that everyone should do X, where X is their own preference. That is the fire. That will invariably rub people the wrong way. It is inherently not an amicable way to communicate about differences in design opinions.
That's not to say you can't give critical feedback. "I'm not a fan of the font, I prefer fonts that are easier to read" would be perfectly reasonable. It's specifically the assertion that there is a way that things ought to be done, as though there are not trade-offs depending upon what each person values but rather one objectively superior way, that causes friction.
Subjectivity is implied. You’re shadowboxing against a claim that the person you replied to never made. Communication is more than the simple dictionary definitions of the words being written.
And as has been pointed out, you are yourself asserting your opinion about subjective communications as fact (i.e. that you should always make it denotatively clear to readers when you’re going your opinion and when you’re globally asserting something)
I will give you credit, you have an art for writing absolutely infuriating comments. How is it that you manage to so perfectly encapsulate the exact thing you baselessly accuse one of doing?
> You’re shadowboxing against a claim that the person you replied to never made.
You start with this, and then immediately lead into:
> Communication is more than the simple dictionary definitions of the words being written.
> that you should always make it denotatively clear to readers when you’re going your opinion and when you’re globally asserting something)
Neither of which are claims I made. At no point did I engage in the dictionary-definition pedantry that plagues this site. I was specifically highlighting how the sentiments they expressed in their message come together as a whole. An accusation that one "forgot to take basic principles into account" cannot possibly be construed in any way other than insulting. That phrase denies the possibility that the OP considered readability but consciously chose to make a trade-off in alignment with their own values, asserts the author's view as a matter of principle, and denigrates the person who "forgot" to consider it.
> you are yourself asserting your opinion about subjective communications as fact
Insofar as words have any meaning whatsoever, I am observing a fact about how they chose to communicate. If you really want to play the stupid game the people of this forum love where you play at the margins of language endlessly redefining everything into meaninglessness to score points in an argument, you can count me out.
> getting upset over blatantly subjective matters being discussed with zero cushioning like this, then I'm doing little more than intentionally misreading the other person until I upset myself. You're reacting to the smoke, not the fire.
It's not about cushioning. They are explicitly criticising the website ("pity", "forgot to take basic principles into account"), and saying broadly that everyone should do X, where X is their own preference. That is the fire. That will invariably rub people the wrong way. It is inherently not an amicable way to communicate about differences in design opinions.
That's not to say you can't give critical feedback. "I'm not a fan of the font, I prefer fonts that are easier to read" would be perfectly reasonable. It's specifically the assertion that there is a way that things ought to be done, as though there are not trade-offs depending upon what each person values but rather one objectively superior way, that causes friction.