[afwe]

But those notices really are irrelevant, right? I mean, there is nothing I can do to bypass them. It's bad UX, like showing a disabled button that I can't enable by any means.

Having said this, you can still use Telegram Web on Safari to bypass these restrictions.

[notRobot]

No, they're not irrelevant. These notices tell people why they can't access certain information. They improve the user experience, otherwise the users will not know why certain information is suddenly inaccessible to them.

[eitland]

Spoken like a problematic ux-er ;-)

Visible but disabled items can be important for discoverability.

Knowing when and where to apply which ux rules is probably more important than knowing all the rules.

FTR: I'm happy to work with what I think are good ux-ers so they certainly do exist.

[afwe]

Visible but disabled items are only useful if they can be enabled in a more-or-less obvious way. Showing a disabled item that you can't enable in any way is bad UX. Am I wrong?

[username90]

Knowing that Apple is preventing you from accessing it gives you a way to enable it again: By pressuring Apple to stop doing these shitty things. Same thing with displaying Apples 30% app cuts, if it was clearly shown everywhere likely people would pressure Apple to reduce it which is why you aren't allowed to show it.

Edit: Reading the article again, there is actually a very simple fix to view these posts: Go over to your friend with an android and access them to there, and then remember to buy android in the future to avoid censorship like this. This is surely the main reason Apple doesn't let them show this note.

[vbezhenar]

You can enable those items by using Android.

[boffinism]

A notice is not a disabled item. It's information. It would only be disabled if it was visible but the text was obscured. 'Enabledness' in the context of a notice is legibility. The intended user experience is reading the notice and understanding more about the world.

[eitland]

You are right this time and now you know why Telegram put those messages there: to allow users who need those messages to go online on the Internet or swap to an Android phone.

[grncdr]

Yes

[vbezhenar]

You can't use Telegram Web if government blocked Telegram website. App have a way around government blocking (they use server push to deliver proxy addresses, so the only ultimate way to block Telegram is to block Apple servers).

[benjaminjosephw]

The definitions of "irrelevant" and "bad UX" are obviously very subjective. Personally, I don't think good UX means stripping out the ability to see user intent and context just because it reduces friction.

Showing where user generated content has been censored and the rational as to why is definitely a feature I would want to have regardless of how inconvenient it might be - especially in the context of political discussions.

[ernesth]

First, I do not think they are irrelevant, but it's probably subjective.

Second, them being irrelevant is certainly not a good reason to forbid those notices.

Third, that they are forbidden makes them all the more relevant.

[benhurmarcel]

I don't think they're irrelevant at all, but anyway why would it be forbidden for a developer to include some irrelevant information in their app if they want to?

[the_gipsy]

It conveys very useful information.