Comments | dhaaz: LJ Clients

dhaaz

LJ Clients

May 08, 2008 03:52

Is it just me, or do all LJ clients suck? Most of them don't even appear to be feature complete. Many of those listed by LJ have since died or are at least being seriously neglected (and it will take some digging to determine this in most cases). Every client I've ever tried has never had anything that made it better than LJ's standard web ( Read more... )

lj clients, brainstorming

Comments 6

Ha residual_lines May 10 2008, 21:19:33 UTC

DO you and Joie want together and make a sweet LJ client for me? I would be all over it.

Features… dhaaz May 10 2008, 22:24:36 UTC

Some ideas are:

a temporal view of a stream of posts (I sometimes wish I had a better sense of when posts were made relative to other posts, how often people post, etc.)
tag cloud views of a post stream (only helpful if people have actually been tagging their entries; might be a bit bandwidth-intensive to try to do keyword mining...)
graphical display of your social network with more info on hover-over, like what LJ does now when you hover over a username; might be possible to somehow weight users and generate something like those "mindmaps" of your friend-network that that one site produces
hooking into other, newer LJ services such as photos and audio posts; integrating a Jabber client so that people might actually start chatting in real-time with their LJ username
assistance for embedding video (embed a lightweight browser instance, basically)

le_doyen June 16 2008, 07:29:04 UTC

semagic is a just ideal but doesn't existe for MAC

dhaaz June 16 2008, 10:55:19 UTC

What about Semagic makes it ideal for you?

le_doyen June 16 2008, 13:12:31 UTC

did you tried it?

offline/pics upload/multiposting etc...

dhaaz June 16 2008, 13:20:11 UTC

No, I haven't been able to try it; I've been using Macs for longer than I've been using Livejournal.

I was wondering if there were a couple of features of Semagic that you really rely on, or something that Semagic does that keeps you from looking for some other client. From what you've said, it sounds like Semagic is ideal because it does everything you want a journal client to do.

Are there any features Semagic doesn't have that you'd like it to have, or are you completely satisfied with it as it is now?