←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.42934898[source]
I'm growing to the idea that chat is a bad UI pattern, period. It is a great record of correspondence, I think. But it is a terrible UI for doing anything.

In large, I assert this is because the best way to do something is to do that thing. There can be correspondence around the thing, but the artifacts that you are building are separate things.

You could probably take this further and say that narrative is a terrible way to build things. It can be a great way to communicate them, but being a separate entity, it is not necessarily good at making any artifacts.

replies(17): >>42934997 #>>42935058 #>>42935095 #>>42935264 #>>42935288 #>>42935321 #>>42935532 #>>42935611 #>>42935699 #>>42935732 #>>42935789 #>>42935876 #>>42935938 #>>42936034 #>>42936062 #>>42936284 #>>42939864 #
packetlost ◴[] No.42935264[source]
I even think it's bad for generalized communication (ie. Slack/Teams/Discord/etc.) that isn't completely throwaway. Email is better in every single way for anything that might ever be relevant to review again or be filtered due to too much going on.
replies(2): >>42935353 #>>42936042 #
goosejuice ◴[] No.42936042[source]
I've had the opposite experience.

I have never had any issue finding information in slack with history going back nearly a decade. The only issue I have with Slack is a people problem where most communication is siloed in private channels and DMs.

Email threads are incredibly hard to follow though. The UX is rough and it shows.

replies(2): >>42936201 #>>42942667 #
1. esafak ◴[] No.42942667{3}[source]
In Slack people don't even consistently use threads, because they are not forced to, so conversations are strewn all over the place, interleaved with one another. Slack has no model of a discussion in the first place.