you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (12 children)

Does your device not have a web browser that can go to the far more capable website?

"Though this app wastes more space, it also works worse!" doesn't seem a compelling value proposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)
    • opinion
    • missing basic functionality available on the website

    choose one

    It seems absurd to defend the incapacity & redundancy of a deficient technology. Did you miss the part where OP can't set the URL of their post & doesn't seem able to perform an easy edit? The URL in the body is still wrong.

    Your comment needs text alternative.Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:

    • usability
      • we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
      • text search is unavailable
      • the system can't
        • reflow text to varied screen sizes
        • vary presentation (size, contrast)
        • vary modality (audio, braille)
    • accessibility
      • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
      • some users can't read the image due to lack of alt text (markdown image description)
      • users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
      • systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
    • searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
    • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
      • image breaks
      • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

    Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    You are taking the ol' doom scroll way too seriously. You need to go touch grass, or maybe smoke some. Many of us only use the site on mobile, with an app because it's convenient. Your gatekeeping is not needed or welcome here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Boost works great. Weird that you care so much about shitting on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    OP just stated it's less capable by lacking basic features from the website, so if "works great" means "works like shit", then I'll concede your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Ok fair enough, and when you can demonstrate that "basic features" can also be things literally no one would give a shit about or notice who aren't you, then I'll concede your point. I doubt anyone knows what the hell you're talking about even now that you've explained it. It certainly doesn't matter to anyone besides you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    Said website also replaces the link url if one adds a picture, so likewise both can't be posted together. Perhaps you should've checked if your proposed solution actually works.

    Some popular Lemmy apps also don't show the link if an image is there. Idk how this works in data structures, but the support for posting both things is clearly not widespread.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It actually saves on resources because it's not loading in CSS and JS. Also I like the look, been using boost long before it was a Lemmy client.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    It actually saves on resources because it’s not loading in CSS and JS.

    I see no evidence of that: I'm pretty sure all clients load a web engine and related resources including CSS, which means you're installing a redundant, special-purpose web client when you already have a general web client installed. Plus, lacking basic functionality as OP states makes it the opposite of useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments