6 ms·

You are in the minority. For most people twitter does not take anywhere near that long to load and I'd wager there's more people using phones to read and even a

by Tenoke 5y ago

You are in the minority. For most people twitter does not take anywhere near that long to load and I'd wager there's more people using phones to read and even as their primary/only device than there are with a connection/machine like yours. I'm all for lighter sites but I'd still bet that an article published as a PDF would cause more inconvenience overall than publishing it on a typical js-heavy site. Further, there are more workarounds to js-heavy sites (blocking some js, mobile versions, rss etc.) than there are to pdfs.

forgotmypw17 5y ago
> You are in the minority. This is true, perhaps. > I'm all for lighter sites but I'd still bet that an article published as a PDF would cause more inconvenience overall than publishing it on a typical js-heavy site. This feels to me like you're telling me my experience is not valid. Is it because I'm in the minority? Or because you have a different experience? Do you know anyone who uses a 5-year-old device day-to-day, or have you ever tried? It feels like you are denying that this experience even exists.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  I'm not telling you your experience isn't valid. We are comparing two approaches and I'm saying that while both cause problems one affects more people. That doesn't take away the issues with heavy js, simply makes it a lesser evil in this comparison. >Do you know anyone who uses a 5-year-old device day-to-day, or have you ever tried? Sure, I occasionally use my old 8 year old laptop or 6 year old phone and with either of those the article that will inconvenience me the most on the front page today is this one.
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    I feel like we are mostly in agreement. I appreciate you sharing your experience, and keeping your older devices working and useful. Aside from usability, PDF also has many other drawbacks, such as being binary and not human readable or editable. Thank you for this chat!

by Tenoke 5y ago

forgotmypw17 5y ago

> You are in the minority. This is true, perhaps. > I'm all for lighter sites but I'd still bet that an article published as a PDF would cause more inconvenience overall than publishing it on a typical js-heavy site. This feels to me like you're telling me my experience is not valid. Is it because I'm in the minority? Or because you have a different experience? Do you know anyone who uses a 5-year-old device day-to-day, or have you ever tried? It feels like you are denying that this experience even exists.

Tenoke 5y ago
I'm not telling you your experience isn't valid. We are comparing two approaches and I'm saying that while both cause problems one affects more people. That doesn't take away the issues with heavy js, simply makes it a lesser evil in this comparison. >Do you know anyone who uses a 5-year-old device day-to-day, or have you ever tried? Sure, I occasionally use my old 8 year old laptop or 6 year old phone and with either of those the article that will inconvenience me the most on the front page today is this one.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  I feel like we are mostly in agreement. I appreciate you sharing your experience, and keeping your older devices working and useful. Aside from usability, PDF also has many other drawbacks, such as being binary and not human readable or editable. Thank you for this chat!