v0.6.0 just cut, quite happy with the swipe gestures for replying, as well as some better caching / offline behavior on app cold start.
@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@paratoner๐profilefollow:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@paratoner๐profilefollow:๐ฅ Thatโs great! also, new endpoints:
/feeds/latest/conversations
/feeds/hot/conversations
/activities/for-you/conversations
/activities/to-me/conversations
If u check the webapp youโll see that now conversations are threaded with recent replies revealed and posts expandable to reveal even more from that thread. These new endpoints deliver all that, so we move from strictly chronological to more โrecent discussionโ based views. Just more work for the next versions :) lmk if you need smth@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.replied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:As a suggestion, could we stick to either first or second person for those sections and links. ie: either "to me" and "for me" or "to you" and "for you". One of each just adds cognitive load.
@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:it was semi-intentional, here are the complete sentences you can imagine:
โhere are posts for youโ (site talking)
โthese posts are addressed to meโ (me talking)
@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.replied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:Sure, but why is one statement the site talking and the other one me talking? It's just arbitrary and adds a moment of confusion. Maybe I'll run a poll to see if it's just me.
@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:Wouldnโt it be more confusing if there were two tabs with repeating pronouns? Idk Iโm not settled on this. I just picked whatever felt better. Theyโre more visually different.
@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.replied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:Repeating pronouns would not be confusing for me. It would serve to indicate that it's the prepositions which are the important part (which they are). Anyway the poll is now live at &2737 so we can see what the majority think.
Side note: is there a better way to refer to one post in another like this than putting the whole URL in there?
"for you" & "to me" (status quo)13%
"for you" & "to you"13%
"for me" & "to me"0%
"following" & "inbox"47%
some other combination27%
15 voted@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:Fantastic! About the post linking, Iโve thought about it and canโt come up with a good solution. For now itโs getting shrinked visually to
/post/123 because itโs the app domain. Any suggestions here?@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.replied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:I can't really think of anything better off-hand. You could overload the # some more and just follow it with the post number but then there would be chaos if anyone wanted a fully numerical hashtag which is going to happen at some point (new year, for instance).
I like that it shortens it in the rendering as it stands - that's good enough for me. :)
@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.:Letโs use tilde ampersand, check &2596 .
@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ @@@ @@@ @@@@@@@ @@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@@
@@! @@! @@! !@@ @@! @@! @@! @@@ !@@
@!! @!!!:! !@@!@! @!! @!! @!@ !@! !@! @!@!@
!!: !!: !: :!! !!: !!: !!: !!! :!! !!:
: : :: ::: ::: ::: : : ::.: : : :. : :: :: : #ascii_art
@hippo๐ฆprofilefollowStrictly no LLMs. No exceptions.replied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:That works nicely. Although again you will get unintentional usage because
~ followed by a number is often used to mean approximately that number. eg: "we're expecting ~100 people". You are also using it for strikethrough formatting.
Looking at my keyboard the least ambiguous/overused symbol is probably the & - but I'm not sure if that's better overall.@unsayprofilefollow#minneapolisnotesfollowreplied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:I think the ampersand is ok. It's doesn't much historical use for these things and being feels more like an append behavior than movement to or continuation of a conversation.
>_2596, branded but looks and feels awkward
>2596 or >>2596, I like the directionality and punch.@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@unsayprofilefollow#minneapolisnotesfollow:
creative technologist
creator of textlogreplied to@unsayprofilefollow#minneapolisnotesfollow:The > is used for quoted text and also you need to say >10 sometimes. Ampersand is ok.
@unsayprofilefollow#minneapolisnotesfollowreplied to@stagas๐คธprofilefollow
creative technologist
creator of textlog:
creative technologist
creator of textlog:I forgot about the canonical > blockquote. Good call.