4 ms·

I don't think the idea that the UI alone being "poor" means it was badly implemented. Maybe you can elaborate more of how it was "badly implemented".

• amichail 19y ago
  The UI is the most noticeable thing. And if it's bad, then that doesn't give you much confidence in the rest of the implementation. And indeed, I hear Twitter has scalability issues. As for what's wrong with the UI, here are some things: * replying to people by including a @ with their name somewhere in your message is really silly * no search feature that looks at the content of messages * doesn't look right when you use a larger font Basically, it looks like it was hacked together in a week and not much was done to improve it later.
  • iamdave 19y ago
    "* replying to people by including a @ with their name somewhere in your message is really silly" I hate to play semantics here, but that's something users do. That's not at all a UI matter, as we're the ones who decide to include the @ symbol when replying to someone. However, it's also very handy to see it because I immediately realize the person is talking to me, and not just referencing me.
    • amichail 19y ago
      Twitter looks for that symbol to decide what goes under "Replies".
      • breily 19y ago
        They only started doing that because users were http://help.twitter.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=63 http://help.twitter.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=63
        • iamdave 19y ago
          Too, and saying "it doesn't look right" is more of an opinion than a serious problem with the UI meaning the application was poorly implemented.