> It's easy to spend decades making crappy software.
But here's the important question: are the problems that are caused by ignoring the aforementioned differences enough to prevent people from being able to use your software? Or, conversely, are they enough to weigh more heavily than the functionality that you provide for your users?
Because somehow even Electron based software is pretty popular in the desktop, oftentimes looking and feeling rather different from most of the native software. But apart from nitpicks and rightfully complaining about those annoying inconsistencies, does it really matter enough to spend resources towards fixing them?
I can't think of that many inconsistencies that caused web applications to be unusable across different platforms altogether, apart from IE not supporting certain JavaScript functionality back in the day and non-transpiled (to say, ES5) codebases breaking altogether. But look and feel related things have hardly been as important.
But here's the important question: are the problems that are caused by ignoring the aforementioned differences enough to prevent people from being able to use your software? Or, conversely, are they enough to weigh more heavily than the functionality that you provide for your users?
Because somehow even Electron based software is pretty popular in the desktop, oftentimes looking and feeling rather different from most of the native software. But apart from nitpicks and rightfully complaining about those annoying inconsistencies, does it really matter enough to spend resources towards fixing them?
I can't think of that many inconsistencies that caused web applications to be unusable across different platforms altogether, apart from IE not supporting certain JavaScript functionality back in the day and non-transpiled (to say, ES5) codebases breaking altogether. But look and feel related things have hardly been as important.