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

I use TiddlyWiki via TiddlyPWA. It's an offline-capable PWA with builtin sync and encryption. It doesn't have folders but it does have nestable tags. I don't think it supports markdown out of the box, but I'm positive you can find a plugin to use markdown. Plugins are crazy easy to install in TiddlyWiki; you just drag and drop the plugin into your wiki window and confirm the installation.

TiddlyWiki via TiddlyPWA is what I use. I don't know if it supports the S Pen and the notes are all saved in a single HTML file.

but it’s the one many first-time Fediverse users coming across from Twitter end up on.

That's because it's the only one ppl will mention as an alternative. Stop telling ppl to try mastodon, tell them to try firefish or akkoma.

Also, the jump effect is way overstated. Some users do end up moving to other software, but many more just leave because they don't like mastodon.

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.

I don't see it withering away anytime soon. My entire career has been enterprise web development (which is why I roll my eyes at all the web dev rants). Every company I've worked at has used Java on the backend and some JS framework for the frontend. Java has only been improving in that time and getting much easier to write. I don't see companies taking an (in their view) unnecessary risk that makes it harder for them to hire and lose efficiency, at least in the short to medium term.

I think the only way that changes is if developers are interested enough to try Rust, or any other language, in their free time. If they like it enough, they'll suggest it at work. If enough developers are doing that, it'll slowly shift the local scene.

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.