I think it used to be impressive when they created Bootstrap.

Twitter's website currently is not Responsive. The web interface looks different on every platform (mobile, tablet, desktop). And on mobile, the website is terribly slow.

Plus, it doesn't highlight a much used feature: search

Right now it's hidden behind a magnifying glass.

I don't find the clickbaity trends they highlight on the homepage very interesting. The content is mostly the same as the MSN homepage.

Just let me search for things I find interesting.

Plus, search can be monitized way better, because you know for sure what the user is looking for.

Sadly, their search doesn't work very well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12646580

i've often wondered if they deprioritised the mobile web frontend in order to get people to install their app (especially since they turned hostile towards third party apps). personally, it just took twitter from something i used to check frequently to something i check once or twice a day when i'm in front of a computer.

It's slow and not all that reliable on desktop as well...

It's at least usable on desktop. Try going to mobile.twitter.com on a phone... it's shockingly slow.

If you have a moderality complex UI, by making it responsive you are going to ruin it. That's why most serious websites with complex UIs don't bother with responsiveness and have two different interfaces.

This could be debated, atomic components within a framework built for a purpose can still be responsive.

Responsive or adaptive should be choice made at the start of projects and then ideally followed through till the end.

We choose responsive and made atomic components so it can work, but... it has to be in the thought process from design to implementation, the same can be said about adaptive.

Source: Our UI is complex, large, responsive and serves 3 million users and won awards.

Well, Bootstrap comes out of twitter, and for awhile everyone was using that, so that's pretty considerable.

I would not call Bootstrap a UX masterpiece. It's just a bunch of primitively styled elements, no real UX there.

I remember low-budget sites before and after bootstrap, and I gotta say that post-bootstrap is way more usable. While you can mess things up with Bootstrap, the limitations help guide you to settle on standard decisions (like their nav bars, verses whatever cute creative thing people would do on their own).

The Bootstrap guys (@fat is one of them) joined Medium.

So when you see a website built on bootstrap, you think "oh, that's impressive design" as opposed to "oh, they didn't have any time or money to spend on design"?

Not best in class, but better than Amazon.com...