zlacker

[parent] [thread] 11 comments
1. bobaje+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-06-22 10:40:43
Yes, I've been wanting something that's just a rich document but designed around accessibility with no styles or JavaScript.
replies(4): >>fbanon+V >>jgilia+i3 >>postal+Ka >>bazoom+fc
◧
2. fbanon+V[view] [source] 2022-06-22 10:46:41
>>bobaje+(OP)
Yes, but we need to ensure that it stays JavaScript-free rich document format. We would need to ensure that it's impossible for bad (and rich!) actors to introduce their Turing-complete tracking machinery into this new document format when it becomes popular.
◧
3. jgilia+i3[view] [source] 2022-06-22 11:07:11
>>bobaje+(OP)
For what it's worth, there's Gemini. You can't really call it rich document though, as styling is left to the user consuming the content.
replies(1): >>bobaje+C7
◧◩
4. bobaje+C7[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 11:39:05
>>jgilia+i3
Well I don't want styling just document structure/description (eg. H1-8, Title, EM, P, IMG, Author, Article, Forum-Post, Search-Result) and yes I want images too so Gemini goes way too far my uses.
replies(2): >>postal+Ra >>hiccup+Pv
◧
5. postal+Ka[view] [source] 2022-06-22 11:59:25
>>bobaje+(OP)
You want gopher. Most people don't.

If what you really want is to change what other people want you will stay disappointed.

replies(1): >>bobaje+Wp
◧◩◪
6. postal+Ra[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 12:00:10
>>bobaje+C7
Images complicate the accessible requirement.
replies(1): >>bobaje+in
◧
7. bazoom+fc[view] [source] 2022-06-22 12:09:28
>>bobaje+(OP)
Html?
◧◩◪◨
8. bobaje+in[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 13:18:35
>>postal+Ra
True, it's still worth doing though. That's one of the reasons for alt, longdesc, and aria-describedby attributes.
replies(1): >>postal+Up
◧◩◪◨⬒
9. postal+Up[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 13:36:28
>>bobaje+in
What image formats will be support? Plain old 256 color uncompressed bitmaps?

Why leave an existing protocol and easy accessibility just for a few images.

replies(1): >>bobaje+4u
◧◩
10. bobaje+Wp[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 13:36:30
>>postal+Ka
I don't think that's really true. People want content and they will put up with some sites to get it but if things like Readability and Ublock Origin has shown us anything there's a need for something with more user control over it.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
11. bobaje+4u[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 14:01:09
>>postal+Up
I'm not sure I know how to explain it. Images just seem a basic part of content. I just don't think it's acceptable to have to open up an external application to view images in a document.

Any way I'm not against image galleries and video sites either. I just want control over how I consume those. If I want the page read to me it should be possible. If I want to consume it on a tiny 2x2" e-ink display that should be doable.

◧◩◪
12. hiccup+Pv[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-06-22 14:10:28
>>bobaje+C7
Yes, I'd really like an HTML subset without CSS or Javascript.
[go to top]