I haven't used BSD much so I can't make any claims as to the typical user directory layout.

> particularly ones not based on Chromium / Blink - don't follow that convention

To be fair, browsers with small market share are not the ones who decide what informal standards are considered.

> When you consider that there are as many - if not more - exceptions as there are instances that follow that convention, it really becomes hard to even call this a de facto standard;

Again, this boils down to how you believe informal standards should be considered. No doubt you can say there are more exceptions to the rule when anyone with two hands can make their own browser. But should we be considering those browsers, or just the ones with overwhelming market share? That's kind of the point of standards: Cover the typical use cases.

> Microsoft created as an OS standard which browsers were forced into adopting.

That's just not true. Microsoft forced neither Mozilla nor Google to implement this standard. No one was forced to do anything, it just seemed like a sensible idea and caught on.

This is why I keep pushing back when you say "standard". It isn't. It's not standardised and it's not even de facto.

Again, I need to point out that it doesn't need to be an ISO standard to be considered an informal standard. Informal standards are created organically, not intentionally.

> just passing the buck

Lol no. It's called not repeating work. It's a core tenant of the open software community. Don't do someone else's work if you don't have to. Why should each single program onboard the user to a directory which is informally standard on most popular operating systems? It's not passing the buck, it's being DRY.

> You wouldn't blame the oven for cooking a bad meal if someone misread the instructions in a cook book.

Bad analogy. The cookbook doesn't offer instructions on how to use your oven. The oven manual does. If you use an oven without reading the oven manual and expect to learn every safety tip from a random cookbook or internet recipe, then you're not operating your oven correctly. At least a computer won't explode on you.

> you are just reiterating the argument I opened this tangent with.

Only if you strawman me.

This isn't a chance for either of us to come out superior. This is just a conversation about UX. So put the compulsive need to batter down every point I make on ice and look at things for what they are.

> To be fair, browsers with small market share are not the ones who decide what informal standards are considered.

Nobody decides what informal standards are considered. Someone comes of with a standard or convention for that particular application and others either use it or they don't. The market share might help encourage others to adopt it but we frequently see de facto standards born from small hobby projects just as we also often see standards from projects with large market shares completely ignored by the rest of the industry.

What you're trying to do is manipulate reality to suit this argument you've invented rather than accepting that perhaps some of the technical points you raised weren't entirely accurate.

>> > Microsoft created as an OS standard which browsers were forced into adopting.

> That's just not true. Microsoft forced neither Mozilla nor Google to implement this standard. No one was forced to do anything, it just seemed like a sensible idea and caught on.

You've just misquoted me and derived the complete opposite meaning from what I actually posted. I said Microsoft categorically did NOT start the convention. It was Firefox and Chrome (tbh I can't remember which). Microsoft LATER added that convention as a profile folder and only AFTER Firefox/Chrome was already creating and using a downloads directory. Microsoft (nor OS's in general) deserve no credit for the invention of this non-standard "standard".

>> This is why I keep pushing back when you say "standard". It isn't. It's not standardised and it's not even de facto.

> Again, I need to point out that it doesn't need to be an ISO standard to be considered an informal standard. Informal standards are created organically, not intentionally.

Perhaps you don't understand what the term de facto means but I had literally countered your "informal standard" point in the very text you were quoting with regards to your argument about informal standards. There are more exceptions than there are examples so it's a stretch to call it a standard. At best it's a convention.

> It's called not repeating work. It's a core tenant of the open software community. Don't do someone else's work if you don't have to.

But you're doing just that by writing a competing browser anyway. Plus rendering engine alone is several orders of magnitude more work than any UX presented to a user with regards to where downloads are being saved. Let alone the JS JIT compiler, CSS parsers, codifying the multiple HTTP specs, exception handling, etc. To reiterate myself: I know this from first hand experience.

Plus how are you expecting the OS to inform users about a file downloaded via a 3rd party browser?

> Why should each single program onboard the user to a directory which is informally standard on most popular operating systems

Except I had already proved it isn't.

> Again, this boils down to how you believe informal standards should be considered. No doubt you can say there are more exceptions to the rule when anyone with two hands can make their own browser. But should we be considering those browsers, or just the ones with overwhelming market share? That's kind of the point of standards: Cover the typical use cases.

The point of standards - even de facto / "informal" ones - is that things are uniform, typical, consistent, predictable. But "standard" you're describing is only common on a small subset of platforms and easily re-definable on those too. So why you keep holding on to the term "standard" when it's abundantly clear it's a misnomer is beyond me. Particularly when you could make the same argument regarding UX by simply saying it's a known default convention on the major desktop browsers that non-techies would likely use.

> Bad analogy. The cookbook doesn't offer instructions on how to use your oven. The oven manual does.

Actually they often do. They tell you which temperature to set it and sometimes even what shelf to put the food on if it's not a fan assisted oven.

> If you use an oven without reading the oven manual and expect to learn every safety tip from a random cookbook or internet recipe, then you're not operating your oven correctly. At least a computer won't explode on you.

You're expanding the scope of the analogy. I wasn't talking about ovens exploding nor safety tips; I was talking about the food tasting bad.

I do blame myself for that confusion though because analogies are a terrible way to explain things to stubborn people because the very point of an analogy (ie being an imperfect comparison) means they're easily manipulated, nitpicked and disregarded (a friend would describe it as "death by a thousand paper cuts").

When I describe you as stubborn it's knowing I'm guilty of the same as well. I'm being just as stubborn in this discussion too. But then I have literally commited hours of my life developing code in this specific field and also around the period when the downloads directory started springing into existence. So I have first hand experience on this and that's why I'm being so dogmatic about defining what is and isn't technically correct.

> Only if you strawman me.

> This isn't a chance for either of us to come out superior. This is just a conversation about UX. So put the compulsive need to batter down every point I make on ice and look at things for what they are.

Now you're just being hypocritical. I was literally the person who raised the point about UX and you dismissed straight out of hand, blaming the users. I then argued that not all users are going to be competent on computers t which you then back paddled heavily while arguing a whole load of ill-informed horseshit about standards, who created what and so on and so fourth.

I'm happy to agree to disagree if you think I'm just here to "batter" you down but lets not forget that you replied to me with corrections in the first place and have been "compulsively" arguing your points ever since. So your "compulsive battering" argument does work both ways.

In any case, I've made my point. You might still disagree but the argument has become cyclic and I don't want it to get abusive (it's been teetering on the edge of getting personal for a little while) so if you're still unconvinced by me (and I expect you probably aren't?) then perhaps we just agree to disagree and move on with our lives :)

You're being a pedantic asshole, and yes apparently I did misread your quote about Microsoft, but the rest of this tl;dr post is so riddled with assumptions and insults that I no longer wish to entertain this conversation. Go work on your people skills.

Ok, I guess we’re not going to end this amicably after all....

1. You call me an asshole and insult me in nearly ever post then finally say I need to work on my people skills? Don’t you think that’s at least a little hypocritical?

2. I’m being pedantic when I’m correcting a point you’re making but you’re not pedantic when you attempt to correct other people? Again, you’re being a massive hypocrite.

3. I wasn’t the one making assumptions. I’ve backed up my points with plenty of counter examples. Like I keep saying, I have experience in the field.

I’m genuinely not trying to be an arse; I just don’t appreciate someone lecturing me with misinformation on a topic I’m well versed on. And then throwing your toys out of the pram when i dare correct you is an equally special move.