0x1C3B00DA

Apple's implementation of other PWA standards requires an app to be opened from the home screen. A user can't access features of the app if they can't add it to the homescreen.

nodebb and discourse are working on activitypub support. See https://crag.social/@devnull/111732273308478221

Entirely unmoderated tags are not an option for lemmy as the moderation workload would be too much. Additionally users being able to type out tags themselves introduces splintering in the tag contents due to typos. A better solution is a curated list of tags users can attach to their posts

I vehemently disagree with the main idea behind this RFC. Just let users put arbitrary tags on their posts and other users can search for whatever tags they want. The rest of the fediverse has unmoderated hashtags and it works fine. I don't see a good reason hashtags should require moderation. And typos can be corrected by editing the post.

Adding those restrictions just makes this feature more complex than it needs to be and reduces compatibility with the fediverse. Users of any fediverse software can create a post in a lemmy community and those posts may have arbitrary tags. Why should lemmy users have less capability on lemmy than external users?

Finally, hashtags could be a useful way to filter posts within a community if these restrictions are dropped. I posted this in the github thread, but imagine a general programming community. Posts could be tagged with a language, paradigm (OOP, functional, etc), or whatever else to allow users to browse subtopics within a community. Having to request moderators add a tag is an unnecessary extra step.

It's not OP's fault, but voting is how we're supposed to curate content. This post doesn't have a title or description so it's a bad post on lemmy and I think downvoting it is acceptable. Don't consider votes a reflection of a user's value or standing

Agreed. This is a lemmy bug. The OP is on mastodon (where video previews are fetched and displayed) and has no control over how its rendered over here. It'd be nice if lemmy fetched the title and description

This is exciting. I think code forges are one of the biggest opportunities for ActivityPub to really go mainstream and change the internet. Not only because it'll make working with open source way easier since you can work with any compatible forge, but developers will be more exposed to ActivityPub just by working with the software and so more likely to participate in AP dev. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the fediverse. There's been a lot of talk from various organizations/companies but this will be the first large project adopting AP. I'm interested to see how development goes for them and for other fediverse projects.

I wonder what changes it will force on Mastodon. Masto won't be the biggest project anymore and won't be able to throw its weight around as much. Just like the recent influx of users forced the implementation of full text search and has reenergized conversations about quote posts, I think federated gitlab would force masto to rethink some things.

my original point was that the main idea of the article down plays the accessibility gains of the modern web. Your reading was that the author meant a different definition of accessibility and not A11y, which would mean the author didn't just down play it, they completely ignored it. The author is complaining that the modern web is awful, while ignoring the huge gains for people who need these accessibility features and how awful web 1.0 was for them

Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility?

No. I'm asking that when they complain about how the modern web is "fucked" and web 1.0 was better, they don't try to act like that is an absolute, since that's an opinion that is not widely applicable.

No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.

Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.

Accessibility almost always refers to disabled people, especially in web development. I've never heard anyone in the industry refer to accessibility in any other way, without explicitly making that clear.

If they meant the reading you took from it, that's even worse and my point is even more pertinent.

Accessibility wasn’t the main topic discussed in the article

That's part of the problem. All these rants about the glory of Web 1.0 are ignoring the fact that Web 1.0 wasn't usable for anybody with accessibility issues and the modern web is better for them. A tiny acknowledgement at the bottom of their rant shows how they value accessibility lower than all of their other concerns.

If Mozilla open sourced it years ago like they promised, it could be picked up by someone else.

Not really. There was a recent article that came out that said tumblr is still losing money. I don't see them spending time and money on something that doesn't have a direct monetization strategy, especially since their userbase isn't actually asking for ActivityPub