That’s a really long AI post that I’m not reading.
Most of these concerns are being alleviated by all the work @[email protected] is putting into join-lemmy.org , which is our centralized onboarding site.
I’d highly recommend you actually read it. Once you look past the LLM-ish phrasing, it quickly becomes clear that the actual information contained is human-made with a great amount of valuable thought put into it.
I’ve been here for a long-time (go and check if you’d like). There wasn’t a single thing in that post that made me think the author hasn’t understood the principles of the fediverse that make it so valuable or reasoned wrong about them – quite the opposite.
This post idenifies many (if not most) of the major problems that I have had with Lemmy over the years. The onboarding improvements you’ve seemed to have at least glanced at are just the tip of the iceberg.
I use Lemmy despite of these limitations but I am also a technical person with quite a bit of tolerance for such technological pain. The high-level improvements proposed here would meaningfully diminish these; allowing less technologically capable or tolerant people to benefit from Lemmy too.
This is actual UX requirement engineering.
If broader (and less technical) user adoption is a goal of the Lemmy project, I’d consider the vision outlined in this post to possibly be one of the most valuable non-technical contributions to Lemmy as a whole.
Seriously.
That’s a really long AI post that I’m not reading.
Most of these concerns are being alleviated by all the work @[email protected] is putting into join-lemmy.org , which is our centralized onboarding site.
If you have suggestions there, you can open up issues on https://github.com/LemmyNet/joinlemmy-site
I’d highly recommend you actually read it. Once you look past the LLM-ish phrasing, it quickly becomes clear that the actual information contained is human-made with a great amount of valuable thought put into it.
I’ve been here for a long-time (go and check if you’d like). There wasn’t a single thing in that post that made me think the author hasn’t understood the principles of the fediverse that make it so valuable or reasoned wrong about them – quite the opposite.
This post idenifies many (if not most) of the major problems that I have had with Lemmy over the years. The onboarding improvements you’ve seemed to have at least glanced at are just the tip of the iceberg.
I use Lemmy despite of these limitations but I am also a technical person with quite a bit of tolerance for such technological pain. The high-level improvements proposed here would meaningfully diminish these; allowing less technologically capable or tolerant people to benefit from Lemmy too.
This is actual UX requirement engineering.
If broader (and less technical) user adoption is a goal of the Lemmy project, I’d consider the vision outlined in this post to possibly be one of the most valuable non-technical contributions to Lemmy as a whole.
Seriously.