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.
First of all, Lemmy is open source. If you or anyone else wants to improve things, please open issues with concrete suggestions, or better yet make a pull request.
The linked post also has various factual errors, not sure if AI hallucinations or the author was using older versions.
The first 30 second: Stop explaining federation up front
I changed this on join-lemmy.org a few days ago. Maybe its not reflected in other language translations yet.
Feeds: Lemmy needs content gravity, not just content
Not really sure what these mean, would have to see concrete examples of these supposed problems.
Search: “Technically present” isn’t enough
Search already shows communities first.
Portability: Lemmy’s killer feature new to feel real
Data migration between instances has been implemented for a long time.
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.
First of all, Lemmy is open source. If you or anyone else wants to improve things, please open issues with concrete suggestions, or better yet make a pull request.
The linked post also has various factual errors, not sure if AI hallucinations or the author was using older versions.
I changed this on join-lemmy.org a few days ago. Maybe its not reflected in other language translations yet.
Not really sure what these mean, would have to see concrete examples of these supposed problems.
Search already shows communities first.
Data migration between instances has been implemented for a long time.