98% Isn't Much
The article discusses how 98% is not a satisfactory percentage for certain aspects of life, such as a restaurant's food safety record or a website's compatibility with browsers. It highlights that 98% can be misleading, as it can still result in a significant number of people being affected, and that truly robust engineering should prioritize handling edge cases. The article concludes that 98% is not enough to be considered widely supported, especially when it comes to basic expectations like website functionality or food safety.
- ▪A restaurant with a 98% food safety record can still get people sick on a monthly basis.
- ▪A website that works for 98% of the population can still exclude around 150 million people.
- ▪98% support for a feature does not necessarily mean it is suitable for a specific audience or use case.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
98% sounds like a lot. If someone wins the lottery 98% of the times they play, they are clearly blessed. Getting a top mark (e.g.: 10/10) on exams 98% of the time will likely lead to an honour diploma.But a restaurant where clients don’t get of food poisoning 98% of time is getting people sick on a monthly (or even weekly) basis. If an employer pays their employees 98% of the times, I definitely wouldn’t want to work there. If I pay before leaving a restaurant only 98% of the time, I’ll be in trouble.98% is great for exceptionally good things, like dramatically increasing someone’s quality of life, but very low for basic expectations, like a baby surviving a babysitter taking care of them.If a website uses fancy new browser features and works for 98% of the population, that means that it…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Whynothugo.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Whynothugo
