Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

gemini:// space

spwhitton.name

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 177 posts

Re: gemini:// space

#141

Post by leesalminen »

madeofpalk wrote: post #101
simias wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick internet search tells me that between 50 and 74% of adults (depending on the source) need some for of vision correction. That's very much not niche. Also it's a pretty bad example because very rarely do you need to worry about "corrective lense accessibility", except maybe for things like VR helmets. A better example would be things like wheelchair accessibility for instance, which is indeed very much not imp…

> A quick internet search tells me that between 50 and 74% of adults (depending on the source) need some for of vision correction. That's very much not niche. That's my point :) > Also it's a pretty bad example because very rarely do you need to worry about "corrective lense accessibility", except maybe for things like VR helmets. Ahh, but what corrective lesnses points to is degregation in eyesight. So ways to make…

I’ve been wearing glasses full time for 25 years and have never wished a website was designed for me to use without glasses. Ever.

Re: gemini:// space

#142

Post by badsectoracula »

My main annoyance for gemini not having http is that i do not want to run a VPS. My (web) site is running on shared hosting where keeping (or not) software up to date, keeping up with the latest and greatest way Gmail breaks email and any other admin-level stuff i handled by someone else (and also it is cheaper) - i just upload a bunch of static HTML files and anything else i need to share and leave it at that.

If Gemini used http 1.0 (like others mentioned) it'd work out of the box - not just for me, but for everybody else. But the custom protocol pretty much requires a VPS and that opens a can of worms i'm not interested in opening again.

FWIW i used to have my own "gopherhole" but since that one also needs a custom server, i dropped it after i switched from VPS to shared hosting. I still have the client i wrote though[0] and considered making a Gemini one at some point but the fact that i can't make my own site does hamper things a bit (and TBH i haven't updated the Gopher client for years either).

[0] http://runtimeterror.com/tools/gopher/

Re: gemini:// space

#143

Post by ufmace »

trap_chateau wrote: post #117

While I think gemini is a cool 'hideout' on the web, it seems a lot of content served over gemini is also served over http. Does anyone know of any message boards like The Midnight Pub[1] that are served over gemini only? After some browsing, I couldn't find any. [1] https://midnight.pub/ gemini://midnight.pub/

That's kind of the trouble with Gemini now. Since you can't send significant amounts of text to the server, you can't really make a message board kind of thing in pure Gemini. The content submission has to be done via HTTP or a terminal interface to the server.

But then, if HTTP is the simplest and most secure way to allow posters to make submissions, then is there really a point to allowing the messages to be read over Gemini? Might as well make a simple HTTP layout and have the whole thing run over HTTP.

Re: gemini:// space

#144

Post by madeofpalk »

leesalminen wrote: post #141
madeofpalk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A quick internet search tells me that between 50 and 74% of adults (depending on the source) need some for of vision correction. That's very much not niche. That's my point :) > Also it's a pretty bad example because very rarely do you need to worry about "corrective lense accessibility", except maybe for things like VR helmets. Ahh, but what corrective lesnses points to is degregation in eyesight. So ways to make…

I’ve been wearing glasses full time for 25 years and have never wished a website was designed for me to use without glasses. Ever.

On the other hand, my parents have the font size turned up on their phones because their eyesight degraded with time. I imagine, within time, my eyes will fail more and that'll be me.

Re: gemini:// space

#145

Post by zamadatix »

Symbiote wrote: post #85
grosswait wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it currently is even if it should not be. The number of people that know how to make documents or websites 508 compliant is surprisingly low

Accessibility in the web standards and specifications isn't a niche, even if most implementations don't bother.

How so?

Re: gemini:// space

#146

Post by mlyle »

contravariant wrote: post #51
mlyle wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans need to know what to read, though, too, right? Obviously humans are a bit better at contextual clues, but.. the information has to be there for a human user to make the distinction.

Well if 'readable by a human' would be enough for screen readers then we wouldn't have to worry about accessibility surely?

Sure. But computers spotting foreign words in context similarly to how humans do is a lot more likely than getting most foreign words appropriately semantically tagged.

Re: gemini:// space

#147

Post by andai »

danShumway wrote: post #107
jrochkind1 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "niche" here, we mean affecting very few people, I think? Then "accessiblity" in general is not niche, it effects everyone or almost everyone. But "accessibilty" is a broad concept, applying to all sorts of different unrelated needs. Vision impairment, cognitive differences, mobility needs, etc. Some of them effect more people than others. Some of them will be "niche", effecting few people. it is just a fact, righ…

> By "niche" here, we mean affecting very few people, I think? A text only web is pretty niche. Can this project really afford to start slicing off additional portions of its userbase? I agree that multilingual blind users are in the minority, but those users are probably the most likely of anyone to be interested in a text-only web. And even ignoring blind users, it's just... what's the point of any of this if Gemin…

One of Gemini's explicit goals is for client implementation to be so simple as to be a weekend project for the average developer.

That's one reason inline links are not allowed (they have to be a separate line): it would complicate the parser.

It shouldn't be too hard to add a "language switch" line, so that sections (but not words within sections) can be different languages.

Making Wiktionary or Etymonline in Gemini would require you to add a line break for each foreign word, which seems annoying to read.

I don't see though, why the spec can't allow links that are written on a newline for markup simplicity but displayed inline? And then the same could be done for foreign words.

Re: gemini:// space

#148

Post by marshal_mellow »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #106
h_anna_h wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not buy it. Just use gemini:// rather than https:// to refer to that specific subset of https + html. Maybe also add a header to the server response that says x-gemini: true or whatever. > It's difficult or even impossible to deactivate support for all the unwanted features in mainstream browsers Just do not use mainstream browsers then. Make your own like you do for gemini. They address it a bit later with: > W…

Every Gemini post on HN has an inevitable post like this. Gemini developers want to keep things inside of a box that can't be bulldozed by corporate interests. I love it. I just wish Gemini browsers would optionally inline media and video links, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't happen before too long.

Theres a gemini browser called lagrange that has inline images/audio

Re: gemini:// space

#149

Post by [deleted] »

_wolfie_ wrote: post #91
amadsen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My vision is good and I also don't know if the word you quoted was supposed to be in English, French of Irish? The point being, a screen reader has no more or less information than a human reader. It might be better then to invest effort in improving language inference heuristics, which would help in all applications (pdf documents, text files) than to try to build in support in each underlying protocol.

But some unicode characters are supposed to be rendered differently based on the language of the text that contains them. So this (language tagging) is required even for getting the thing rendered correctly.

[deleted]

Re: gemini:// space

#150

Post by bullen »

This is the equivalent to creating a new programming language instead of just using C syntax with the C++ compiler.

HTTP/1.1 is our final network protocol, just accept it. Just like Java is the final serverside programming language. JSON is the final data container.

Everything else is completely stupid, indefinitely.

Also: Make your own crypto! Xo

But if Firefox and Chrome bans HTTP/1.1 (which means they will be obsolete) AND gemini adds chunking (without which it is meaningless) AND port 1965 is opened in every firewall on the globe; I might actually consider switching to gemini/v0.14.4 on my app server!

Post reply on HN