Maybe you should start with real existing technologies when you do your analysis: rss, federation, graphql. Group chat is the most primitive of feed types and is incredibly outdated UX in 2025. Even RSS - technology from 1999 - has solved the issues telegram is still trying to solve now 26 years later.
RSS is a general standard, for everyone to use, TG is not. Yet it’s likely that more people use TG than RSS. That’s what I meant by market.
Group chat is the most primitive of feed types and is incredibly outdated UX in 2025.
That’s like saying that wheel is outdated when we have jet engines. What would you propose instead?
Even RSS - technology from 1999 - has solved the issues telegram is still trying to solve now 26 years later.
Which specific issues and in which regard?
I would like TG to have a tree view representation of discussions, a bit like what web forums have available. Or a view separated into pages, like the same thing, with n posts on one page and page numbers and visible post ids.
I don’t like its actual client or its UX in the sense of appearance and widgets. What I meant is that I like what it presents to the user in the sense of entities.
In particular, again, that a community is essentially one thing, where posts with comments and a group chat are projections of the same data. You can see new posts and comments in the group chat, all in one place.
You’re using appeal to popularity to claim that Telegram has good UX because more users use it which makes no sense unless you have A|B test that you can execute right now to prove your point.
Just because it’s popular does not mean it’s good especially when the market in this scenario has no choice or vote how the UX is implemented.
Which specific issues and in which regard?
The one you mentioned for starters - following multiple channels in a single feed.
Telegram has a terrible UX for social networking and feed following - it’s a private messaging app that has been hacked together into use case it was never made for in the first place and it really shows.
I don’t claim it has good UX. I claim it has good semantics.
The one you mentioned for starters - following multiple channels in a single feed.
I didn’t mention that.
But I also think having everything in a single feed from all places would really suck, like it does in FB.
Telegram has a terrible UX for social networking and feed following
What social networking is has many different meanings, easily creating groups (communities) and posting\commenting there, like in LJ, seems more important for me.
it’s a private messaging app
It’s not.
that has been hacked together into use case it was never made for in the first place and it really shows.
Factually wrong - it was from the beginning intended to be what it is now. Channels and chats.
And, of course, I don’t think your ideas for that use case are better than Telegram’s. I don’t think social networks with feeds and following are something good.
Lol
Maybe you should start with real existing technologies when you do your analysis: rss, federation, graphql. Group chat is the most primitive of feed types and is incredibly outdated UX in 2025. Even RSS - technology from 1999 - has solved the issues telegram is still trying to solve now 26 years later.
RSS is a general standard, for everyone to use, TG is not. Yet it’s likely that more people use TG than RSS. That’s what I meant by market.
That’s like saying that wheel is outdated when we have jet engines. What would you propose instead?
Which specific issues and in which regard?
I would like TG to have a tree view representation of discussions, a bit like what web forums have available. Or a view separated into pages, like the same thing, with n posts on one page and page numbers and visible post ids.
I don’t like its actual client or its UX in the sense of appearance and widgets. What I meant is that I like what it presents to the user in the sense of entities.
In particular, again, that a community is essentially one thing, where posts with comments and a group chat are projections of the same data. You can see new posts and comments in the group chat, all in one place.
You’re using appeal to popularity to claim that Telegram has good UX because more users use it which makes no sense unless you have A|B test that you can execute right now to prove your point.
Just because it’s popular does not mean it’s good especially when the market in this scenario has no choice or vote how the UX is implemented.
The one you mentioned for starters - following multiple channels in a single feed.
Telegram has a terrible UX for social networking and feed following - it’s a private messaging app that has been hacked together into use case it was never made for in the first place and it really shows.
I don’t claim it has good UX. I claim it has good semantics.
I didn’t mention that.
But I also think having everything in a single feed from all places would really suck, like it does in FB.
What social networking is has many different meanings, easily creating groups (communities) and posting\commenting there, like in LJ, seems more important for me.
It’s not.
Factually wrong - it was from the beginning intended to be what it is now. Channels and chats.
And, of course, I don’t think your ideas for that use case are better than Telegram’s. I don’t think social networks with feeds and following are something good.