A look at how mental disorders, and those who have them, are currently underserved in tech. accessibility discussions, and how these relate to the current proposals for the WCAG 3.0.
I'd appreciate critical feedback or suggestions, as I intend to submit my comments to the Task Force behind the WCAG 3.0 once I'm happy with them.
I finally got around to replacing my personal hosted WordPress site with a VPS, allowing me to get started with self-hosting apps (which is something I'd been planning to do for years).
I currently have a Hugo blog, repo hosting with Gitea, a self-developed travel microblog/tracker. I'm thinking about playing around with Mastodon and Matrix at some point, or perhaps Solid.
The last thing I really want is a cataloguing tool for tracking books I read/films + TV I watch/games I play/music I listen to. This would replace the various social cataloguing sites I currently use (Goodreads, Letterboxd, Followmy.tv, Grouvee and Last.fm, respectively).
I've not been able to find a suitable pre-existing tool though. Bookwyrm looked interesting with its ActivityPub social features, but AFAICT it's limited to books only. I also looked into Koillection which was much more flexible, but doesn't seem to have any import ability for my pre-existing data.
Does anyone know of anything that might suit my purposes? I would like if it could automatically download cover art and I am ambivalent towards social features. I could bash together something simple myself but I'd like to avoid that if possible.
All intellectual activity is based around the representation of ideas through imperfect media. My personally-preferred medium is writing and one's writing, as with all other skills, improves with repetition. Bouncing ideas around in one's head is all well and good, but it can get tiring. Taking the time to express those thoughts in a medium of choice allows one to exorcise them from the mind. Exposing them, as I do here, to a potential audience (and the attendant risk of criticism) ensures that any such idea will have been thoroughly analysed, and any potential illogicalities headed off in advance. By consolidating disparate thoughts through writing, I improve my understanding of them and my ability to discuss them in person. Other benefits, like being able to point people towards certain pieces for my thoughts on certain topics, are only bonuses—ultimately, writing is my deadlifting.
And, to perhaps make the point more pithily, that is a quote from a blog post I wrote four years ago and which better expresses my thoughts than anything I could have come up with just now.
One of the co-authors (Mark Levine) delivered a talk on his research on ‘groups and identities in security research’, which touched a bit on the the CCTV work discussed here (amongst other things). https://bengoldsworthy.net/2018/12/security-lancaster-semina...
It looks like that can only be triggered if the user interacts with the extension in some way. Presumably, then, it won't work if there's a script that should run on each page load.
EDIT: I had a look at the manifest.json[1], and it turns out that's the only permission I've requested. Not sure why Firefox says I'm asking for everything and the kitchen sink.
As yoklov said, I had to have a small script[1] run a quick check on every page you visit to check if the URL is a Pinpointer URL. As far as I can tell there's no way around this (and I'd say breaking backwards compatibility with HTTP is a bit drastic for a little browser extension like this).
As far as I can tell the Mozilla addons page doesn't like addons running on it. I'll add a more explanatory error message though. I hadn't thought to test it on HN, so that's intriguing. I'll look into it, but I'd presume it's due to some sort of quirky DOM structure.
I wanted to try making a browser extension and it seemed weird to me that there didn't seem to exist any means of linking to specific elements on a web page if they hadn't been given IDs to make a fragment identifier out of, so I made this.
You select a page element and generate a link, which you can then share. For someone without the extension, the link will work as normal and just take them to the page, but someone with the extension will have the selected element focused on and highlighted for them.
There's also a repo on GitHub (for now)[1] and I wrote about how I made it[2]. My next priorities are to make it not look like ass and to shorten the links somehow. Let me know what you think.
> there didn't seem to exist any means of linking to specific elements on a web page if they hadn't been given IDs to make a fragment identifier out of
There's archive sites that do this, without a browser extension, and since it's an archive site instead of a live page, the content won't change underneath the target: http://archive.is/RUyWM#selection-253.74-253.223
This is really interesting, I'm not sure how I didn't find it before. What I'd like to know is whatever happened to the CSS-selectors-as-fragment-identifiers movement and why it didn't take off. The proposal that inspired that extension[1] was written by Simon St.Laurent and Eric Mayer, so it's not like it was a fringe thing, and they co-chaired a W3C Working Group on the topic[2], but it apparently never published any reports and the last recorded activity was in Jan 2013. Anyone know what happened?
Yeah, I dunno why it never took off, though Meyer was one of the few to star the repo, so I thought that was nice. I was never able to get much traction on my extension either, though some people did port it to every browser, which was also nice.
I think this is just one of those problems that's hard to sell to people.
I simply tried to find a suffix of the path that still identifies the element uniquely. Turns out that p:nth-of-type(3) is good enough already. If you want to be a bit more robust to changes on the page, you could also search for the last element with an ID in the path, i.e. #mw-content-text > div.mw-parser-output > p:nth-of-type(3).
If you mean what I think you mean, you can already send a link that specifies a valid element ID on the page to anybody and have their browser focus on it — that's what fragment identifiers are for. However, if the page designer has neglected to provide a unique ID for each page element (and they probably have), you're out of luck. Ideally, you'd be able to specify any valid CSS selector that only selects one element as a fragment identifier, but that's not the case (and is basically what this extension makes possible).
Would an XPath work for this? Seems like that would be easiest considering Firefox already has built-in support for getting the XPath from an element on the page.
I'd appreciate critical feedback or suggestions, as I intend to submit my comments to the Task Force behind the WCAG 3.0 once I'm happy with them.