Users: hey can you get rid of the Nazis please

Twitter: ok sure, we've changed the stars to hearts for likes

Users: no no, zero Nazis please

Twitter: yep we're getting rid of Vine

Users: nah hey, what about the Nazis

Twitter: ok ok fine, no more likes

Really though, if you had to ask any average user what were the main things leading to a bad "quality of debate" on this bad website, the tiny little heart symbols would not exactly be at the top of most people's lists

Most Liked Replies

Tad Reeves:
Without likes, folks like me who don't have a zillion followers end up feeling like 95% of what we post ends up in the void. It's tough to get new users onto a service when you feel like you're either (a) a celebrity or (b) you're basically a Google+ user talking to himself.
。゚・\m\(>Д<#)/m/・゚。🏳️‍🌈:
Every single change they make on Twitter just seems to confirm that none of the product designers actually USE Twitter.
ADIL LAK:
You won't believe what they've got in store for the RT icon #twatzis https://t.co/rIonxNgkzL
Jay D. Gregory:
Alternate headline:

"Twitter confused about definition of 'improve', 'quality', and 'debate'"
WhatTheEff?:
In an effort to improve the quality of my experience, how about adding an Edit function.

Spend time more time on the monitoring of YOUR own TOS. Your development staff is lacking in fundamentals and your design team has no clue whatsoever about this product. Geezus.

@jack
CarpalTunnel 🇺🇸🇨🇦🇩🇪🇬🇧🇮🇹🇯🇵🇫🇷:
So instead of a "like" you'll just get 1000 comments saying variations of "agree". Yeah, that'll really improve the "debate" /s.
jr:
Our monthly reminder that @jack is useless
Strawberry_Suede:
It's like talking to Siri. Sheesh.🙄
JM:
Instead can we have an edit button?
WC - PapaCharly:
Ultimately, they Will remove the retweet option as well, to ensure everyone (no one) feels validated, afterwards they Will remove commenting to protect people from dissenting opinions. In the end, twitter Will decide who you follow, so no one feels sad.

 

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.


Original Tweet