Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To be frank, that's probably because you're not listening.

YouTube redesign, Twitter redesign, and one other huge site I can't remember at the moment all had plenty of complaints about how much slower --- and less featured --- they were. The average user doesn't know a static page has been replaced with a bloated SPA, but can sure feel the difference.

The web has declined for sure, and it's precisely because of ignorant developers with attitudes like yours.




Twitter's web version is an abomination. Every time you click on a link to read a tweet, you get an error. Every time. You need to force a refresh to get the content. Its an absolute joke.

To any twitter "engineers" on HN, sort it or abort it.


What's even worse is that the much better static-page "mobile" version which I've been using (mobile.twitter.com), and you can only get to it if you set your UA to an older browser, now has this ominous "warning": "This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on 15 December 2020."

It's deeply disturbing that if they go full-SPA like YouTube did, it seems not a single person working there realises the insanity of somehow needing so much software (and hardware) just to read 140-character long microblogposts, something that would've been possible with hardware and software from 30 years ago. If you look at their minimum browser requirements, then look at the minimum OS requirements from the browser, and go back to hardware requirements from that, you'll probably end up with something that seems ridiculously overpowered for the task, yet with that "minimum supported" system the site will still be slow as molasses and worse than the static page. Seriously, what the fuck!?


Go to about:serviceworkers (for Firefox, other browsers might have it elsewhere) and remove anything related to twitter - or better yet disable service workers entirely. Not saying that this is acceptable, just providing a workaround.


> The web has declined for sure, and it's precisely because of ignorant developers with attitudes like yours.

Not only due to developers. Designers have a hand in this too. Example: on many sites (Twitter, Imgur, etc.), it is not possible to simply zoom in an image without jumping to a lot of hoops. You hover the mouse over the image, the pointer becomes a magnifying glass, you click and...

The image blows up to fill to the screen until it his a overly large and useless border that some daft designer thought looked cute. There is no way to zoom in any further, that is blocked. So zooming to see a part if the image in full detail is out of the question. What's worse, if you have a small screen, likely to be the reason that you wanted to zoom in the first place, the zoomed image is actually smaller than the original. Great!

So, I've wasted my data plan to download a large high resolution image and a bunch of javascript libraries that make sure I don't get to enjoy that resolution. I can't remember for sure, but I bet that his already worked fine in Mosaic in 1994. Not anymore. And why? What benefit does this bring? Other than that it looked nice on the designers computer, I mean.


I mean I don't like a lot of these redesigns. However, I think your mixing up correlation and causation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: