@kev I sure didn't. Your client is incapable of processing correctly formatted links, and just strips the URL and shows only the plain text. This is a violation of the fediverse standard for HTML formatting and your client author needs to fix it, or you need to upgrade.
@kev I am not. But what my servertr does follows the standard, and works in everything but tweesecake, because tweesecake explicitly violates the standard. Get a better client.
@kev@app They're doing a complete rewrite. Hopefully that'll fix a lot more brokenness than just this. But until then, folks really really need to stop using tweesecake. Or at least stop complaining to the rest of us when our posts aren't displaying correctly in your client.
@amir@kev@app Nah, they posted a progress update a couple weeks ago. I suspect the issue they have is that tweesecake has a billion features (radio player, telegram, github, etc etc etc) and they don't want to lose any in the rewrite. Whereas most of the accessible clients are just Mastodon only.
@kev@app@amir Yeah, but they want to charge. So they have to offer more than just Mastodon. Because there are multiple free clients that do Mastodon fine.
@fastfinge@app@amir When the rewrite happens I assume they'll charge for that once it's stable. But yeah, a paid client needs to be special to stand out.
@kev@fastfinge@app@amir tbh they've wasted their chance. Everyone who wants an up to date Mastodon experience has switched off months ago, and the rest will once they start charging for this broken mess. I liked Tweesecake when I didn't know what I was missing out on, but by now, nothing of it stands out. There are seperate clients for Mastodon, Telegram, and what have you which all do way better than this. And I'm generally not a fan of these combined app thingies because exactly this always happens. Rather give me one thing tailored to one platform that actually works and is held up to date.
@jonathan859@kev@app@amir I think tweesecake could have been okay as an open source product, where the only thing tweesecake itself provided was the framework (global hotkeys, sessions, the UI, saving and loading settings, securely storing passwords, etc). Then anyone who wanted to could create and maintain a tweesecake plugin for their service of choice. That would have given all the advantages of a combined app, but made it easier to maintain because different developers could maintain the different services. Plus each developer wouldn't have had to create their own UI, invisible hotkeys, etc. But as it is, Tweesecake got themselves into a place where they had to maintain a ton of different features, all by themselves, and I don't think it was sustainable for a single developer. Even Mastodon keeps introducing new features, after all. No service is just "done forever". They all have to be maintained and updated.
@fastfinge@kev@app@jonathan859@amir And now, sadly, fast SMRW is falling into the same trap. AI makes it too easy to try and do everything, all at once. We'd be better with native clients for each platform. Even developing a cross-platform solution is too much for a single developer. If I was doing this, I'd write a Windows only, fediverse only, client, because that would let me focus on one thing and one thing only. Let someone else who loves and uses Linux write the best Linux client. Let bluesky users write an amazing client for that. They can even reuse half the code, probably. Same for everything on mac or Linux. We've got to all learn we can't do everything for everyone, all the time. And either design our software to be modular so other people can take over other parts of the work, or simplify what we offer. When thinking about a new project or feature, the question people need to learn to ask isn't "Can I do this now?" but "Do I want to still be doing this next year?" If the answer to the second question is no, that's totally fine and wonderful and okay and you're not a bad person! Just don't do the thing. Sorry, rant over!
@fastfinge@fastfinge@app@jonathan859@amir I think the FastSMRW developer's just getting burned out on it and/or running into problems. What's really special about it when compared to TC? I mean TC supports most things I know of with Mastodon.
@kev@app@jonathan859@amir It follows the standards correctly. TC does not. As blind people, who need clients to follow web standards so things are accessible for us, we need to come down hard on accessibility clients that don't themselves follow standards. People on Mastodon already write alt-text for us. We shouldn't also be asking them to work-around our clients if they don't follow the standards as specified.
