- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
For quality assurance purposes, please find the grey Heart ( :heart: ) icon near this text, and use the primary mouse button to interact with it.
Filed under: No, I'm not a robot. cxb 1727.... jello 481....
Admin
This thread is right above The Fox Ideas Thread in my Notifications list and I got excited because I misread the title of this thread as Fox Quality Assurance Purposes :sadface:
[image] I get the feeling that this medical microscope is often used to confirm horrible, incurable diseases.Admin
It is pretty solemn, isn't it?
Filed under: StartIt is my only friend...
Admin
Several of these have easy to explain reasons.
Quality Assurance number 4 is like a poor-man's CAPCHTA, to make sure you are reading the questions and answering properly - not just pressing "C" for all answers.
The "Cmd" button is explained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looped_square
Admin
Admin
“⌘” is the Place Of Interest Sign
Sheesh. It's just Apple who are misusing it, the Norwegian place is Doing It Right.
Admin
TR :wtf: is the atrocious formatting in the last one.
:facepalm:
Admin
Nonsense: They're just looking for a good score.
Consider the surveys given by our problem tracking software: If you answer anything but 5, 5, 5,... you'll get a call from the service technician asking why you gave them a bad score. So everyone goes 5, 5, 5, ... and all the service technicians look like the best ones this side of Arcturus.
And that's not all: We have this employee survey which amounts to an organizational rating. If all of those scores aren't 5, 5, 5,... we get not so subtle hints that our scores should be better...
Surveys become worthless when they're so controlled.
Admin
Admin
no idea what font i have that you don't because i never installed any fonts on this machine.....
Admin
I thought we had already established that the source of that symbol on Macintosh keyboards wasn't a building in the Faroe Islands, it was a dictionary of international symbols which was sitting on Susan Kare's desk the day that Steve Jobs pitched a fit about over-using the Apple logo.
Admin
DKF: Nobody said otherwise. Please re-read the text that accompanied the photo (emphasis is mine) :
It is well documented that Susan Kare copied the "point of interest" symbol from a big book of international symbols when selecting a symbol for the command key. (Prior to that, they were using the Apple logo, as was used on the Apple II, but Steve Jobs didn't like the idea of Apple logos appearing all over the menus.)
Admin
Where's the "Dislike" button? Zuckerberg promised us... woopsie wrong forum
Admin
Hold on, you're saying he didn't want Apple to be full of itself?
Filed under: How ironic.
Admin
Having the title truncated at just the right place: priceless
Admin
A swedish road sign: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokaliseringsm%C3%A4rken#/media/File:Sweden_road_sign_H22.svg
Admin
oh i got what the symbol is.
I just don't know what font it is in that it's displaying on my computer and mot on @LB_'s
nto that i care much mind you, but still.
Admin
Yep:
[image]Ubuntu? DejaVu? FreeSans? Droid? Or is your OS so retarded it doesn't have any of those fonts?
Admin
Not just there - it's also used in northern Germany.
Admin
Chrome 46 on Windows 10 :\
Admin
[size=8]Goddamn "Posts can't be empty"[/size]
Admin
I'm seeing it in Firefox on Windows 7. The DOM inspector indicates that this text is specified to use Helvetica, Arial or sans-serif.
Looking at the Character Map for U+2318 in these font families...
I assume my browser (Firefox 41.0.2) discovered that none of the Helvetica fonts (the first font specified for the page) has U+2318, so it started searching for it in the second-choice font (Arial), found it in one of the two Unicode variants, and rendered the character with that.
I don't know if Chrome does this kind of font substitution. If it does, have you configured it to use your own font choice (overriding what the page is requesting?) That would do it, if you haven't selected a Unicode font.
Admin
Admin
Another possibility could be a failure to auto-detect the correct encoding for the page.
Firefox is rendering the page as Unicode. If I change the encoding to Western (my default 8-bit encoding), then U+2318 renders as a blank square.
The page start off with
<meta charset="utf-8">, which implies Unicode, and therefore that the page should be rendered with a Unicode font (or at least should be alert for any characters that require switching to a Unicode font.) There may be a bug in the version of Chrome he's running that causes it to mis-select the correct font under these circumstances.Admin
Precisely. It's set to UTF-8 (and I happen to have a font set installed specifically to deal with this exact issue) and I can see the glyph just fine. I suppose it just doesn't look too hard... [image]
Admin
If I turn on "Auto detect" it switches it to "Western (Windows-1252)", and I have to turn auto detect back off to select UTF8 again. Either way, I can't see the glyph.
Admin
Weird, for sure.
Admin
Yuck. Sounds like you're seeing two different bugs - one that it's not auto-detecting Unicode despite the fact that the page is tagged with UTF-8, and the other that it's not selecting a Unicode font when the encoding is Unicode.
If you're running behind a proxy, then it may be playing some games with the HTML content, but other than that, I'd say it looks like a browser bug.
Admin
You can install the fonts @PJH lists here and then use a CSS extension like Stylebot to apply the third CSS block in this post by @abarker.
This allows Chrome to render most Unicode characters correctly.
Admin
I was so pleased that I did it twice!
Admin
Inconceivable! You can only click the Grey heart once!
Filed under: Instant zero 💔: failed to follow QA standard testing appropriately
Admin
Well, I did get an error.
Admin
WTF? Do you see this?
That is what it should look like if it is UTF-8 bytes (mis)interpreted as Windows 1252.
Admin
No, it's still a single character with the missing glyph icon. No idea why Chrome claimed to be using that encoding.
Admin
Then there must be something external screwing around with your incoming data stream! If it really was UTF-8 coming into your browser setting the encoding to Windows-1252 should show mojibake and not just a single glyph.
Admin
How the fuck do you get that from U+002318? It has a three-byte encoding in UTF-8, not a six-byte one. I'm guessing that something has really screwed things up, and it's likely to be the source of more trouble for you in the future…
Admin
Because it was surrounded by “smart quotes”
Admin
Hasn't the first one discussed a million times already. It's basically a captcha to weed out dishonest and stupid survey takers.
http://thedailywtf.com/images/15/q3/e185/Pic-1.jpg
I'm pretty sure I had fantasies about getting laid long before I had a job.
Admin
Throughout Baltics and Scandinavia too for tourist attractions and places of cultural interest.
Admin
Admin
All he might have implied is that Apple didn't want to seem totally full of itself.
The Windows guys never seem to have had such problems.
Admin
I'm using the Page inspector from Firefox 42. When I select the place-of-interest symbol, right-click and choose "inspect element", here's what I see:
I've emboldened the lines referring to fonts. Strikethrough text is for styles overridden by later styles (as indicated by the DOM inspector).
Please note that there is no mention of Segoe anywhere in here. If that's what you're seeing, it's because your browser substituted it, maybe due to your own local configuration or CSS. It's not part of the CSS coming from the TDWTF server.
Followup Using the other DOM inspector (the DOM-inspector add-on), I see the same thing - that Arial Bold and Segoe UI Symbol are used. I assume that is what Firefox is actually rendering, but it is not what the page's CSS is requesting.
As I surmised previously, Firefox is seeing a glyph that doesn't exist in the font that would normally be used and is substituting a different font in order to render it.
Obviously, some other browsers (like Chrome, it would appear) are not doing this.
Admin
Rendered Fonts Arimo—32 glyphs Noto Sans CJK JP Regular—1 glyph
Admin
I found your problem.
Ben, you're ... different — "different" different.Admin
I know.
Sent from my Samsung dhromebook
Admin
Admin
Whew! For a moment I feared the Firefox version with the ultimate answer number wasn't bugfree!
Admin
Yeah, the user thinks he's doing something to assure the quality of the survey. But in Soviet Survey, quality assures you! Or something.
Admin
Typically, there's a long list (sometimes pushing 100) of phrases that you're expected to evaluate by selecting a value in some range (typically 5 values, but I've seen surveys with 3 and some with as many as 10) whose meaning ranges from "completely agree" to "completely disagree",
They're worried that some people will balk at pages of questions like this (let's face it - these kinds of surveys really suck), and will just fill in the same value all the way down the form in order to enable the "next" button and move on to the next page.
I've been there myself. Many times, they're asking a battery of questions about a product that I know nothing about, or don't care about. So I'm selecting the middle value (usually something like "neither agree nor disagree") for everything on the form. But even on big forms like this, there are sometimes individual lines where I have an actual opinion. They want to make sure I don't gloss over the page and miss those lines.
They do this by slipping in a few lines like "for quality assurance, always select 5". It is (sort of) assuring the quality of the survey. If you answer something other than 5, they assume you aren't actually reading the questions and (I assume) discard your survey.
Admin
Actually, my intended implication was that the problem is using Firefox; the version number wasn't really relevant other than, perhaps, ridiculing the superultrahyperinflation.
Filed under: Coming soon: Firefox 142