←back to thread

Pixar's Render Farm

(twitter.com)
382 points brundolf | 1 comments | 02 Jan 21 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.239s | source
Show context
hadrien01 ◴[02 Jan 21 20:11 UTC] No.25616026[source]▶
For those that can't stand Twitter's UI: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1345146328058269696.html
replies(7): >>25616111 #>>25616482 #>>25616748 #>>25617285 #>>25617838 #>>25618314 #>>25618916 #
happytoexplain ◴[02 Jan 21 20:21 UTC] No.25616111[source]▶
Thank you. All I saw was a post with zero context, followed by a reply, followed by another reply using a different reply delineator (a horizontal break instead of a vertical line??), followed by nothing. It just ends. It's hard to believe this is real and intended.
replies(3): >>25616374 #>>25616499 #>>25618244 #
naikrovek ◴[02 Jan 21 21:03 UTC] No.25616499[source]▶
It's amazing to me that people find twitter difficult to read... I mean it's not perfect but it's not an ovaltine decoder ring, either.

Just ... Scroll ... Down ... Click where it says "read more" or "show more replies"

You're human; THE most adaptable creature known. Adapt!

I'm not saying that twitter UX is perfect, or even good. I AM saying that it is usable.

replies(5): >>25616543 #>>25616610 #>>25616612 #>>25618116 #>>25618619 #
mkl ◴[03 Jan 21 00:28 UTC] No.25618116[source]▶
> Just ... Scroll ... Down ... Click where it says "read more" or "show more replies"

That doesn't work. Neither "read more" nor "show more replies" appears on the page [1]. Nor does "show replies", which turns out to be what you actually need to click once you go to a place it appears. In fact, there's no indication that there even are more replies, or that "replies" are actually the main content.

To see the content, it turns out you need to click on the original "1/" tweet, which takes you to what looks like a new page (but doesn't change the URL, so you can't link to it).

It is not usable in any real sense. I only spent the time to solve the puzzle as I was trying to make sense of your comment.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/BL9M74m (the centre column is shown in full, and there's nothing down further)

replies(1): >>25618160 #
naikrovek[dead post] ◴[03 Jan 21 00:35 UTC] No.25618160[source]▶
> It is not usable in any real sense.

Absolutely untrue. I can use it.

Again, (for about the 4th time) I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's usable.

I want everyone who is disagreeing with me to spend a SINGLE EFFING DAY with a para- or quadrapalegic and then tell me that TWITTER is unusable. What I'm trying to say is that "you have no idea what unusable really means."

You people are spoiled rotten and you not only don't know it, you actively object to anyone who says otherwise.

This site is filled with overinflated 20-somethings that think they know everything important and that their opinion actually has value.

1. mkl ◴[03 Jan 21 01:11 UTC] No.25618384[source]▶
If you had not written your comment claiming it was usable, I would not have been motivated to try and figure out the interface to see how you could claim that in good faith. Once I figured out how to get the content (by randomly clicking on things that didn't look like user interface), I disagreed. I think a "usable" interface means you can tell how to use it (requiring reading a manual would still be "usable" for complex tasks, but Twitter doesn't have one, and is simple).

I think you are using a more extreme definition of "usable" than most people.

Originally, I clicked on the link, saw there was almost nothing there and no visible way of getting more, and went looking for a usable mirror in HN comments.

I'm 41. I'm not a paraplegic, but I am physically disabled; I've spent most of my adult life unable to use keyboards, for example, and there are many ordinary things that most people take for granted that I simply can't do. I think I have a fair and reasonable definition of "usable".