Find the latitude of any place.  

" "

" "

" and the ", or "what all works should have been."

It's okay, you don't have to overthink it! Write how you'd describe the image to a friend over the phone.

This only works with simple real-life photos.
If your image shows more obscure stuff (like mine), . (especially Mastodon users: The link goes to a Fediverse post that you may import into your timeline by copying the URL and searching for it.)
# # # # # # # # # # # # Bonfire hat einen gewaltigen Vorteil gegenber Hubzilla: Es ist bekannter. Denn es macht effizientere Werbung. Soweit ich wei, hat es nmlich ein eigenes Mastodon-Konto.
Kein Witz: Wenn du ein Fediverse-Projekt richtig gut im Fediverse bewerben willst, dann brauchst du dafr ein Mastodon-Konto. Egal, ob dein Projekt selbst sich problemlos mit Mastodon verbinden kann. Mit einem Mastodon-Konto hast du auf Mastodon sehr viel mehr Reichweite als mit einem Nicht-Mastodon-Fediverse-Konto.
Auerdem macht Bonfire sehr viel mehr Werbung sogar noch als Mike fr (streams) und Forte. Und Hubzilla macht im Grunde immer noch fast gar keine Werbung, weil es zum einen noch zu sehr mit sich selbst beschftigt ist und damit, tageslichttauglich zu werden, und wir zum anderen kaum Leute haben, die das Talent htten, Hubzilla innerhalb des Fediverse anzupreisen, noch dazu auf eine mastodonkompatible Art und Weise.
Bonfire ist Hubzilla auf Wish bestellt. Aber VHS ist ja auch Betamax auf Wish bestellt. Betamax kennt keine Sau, und Hubzilla kennt auch keine Sau.
In sptestens zwei Jahren wird es Leute auf Mastodon geben, die glauben, Hubzilla sei der relativ neue schlechte Versuch, Bonfire abzukupfern.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #



<>

Find the latitdue and longitude of any place If you talk about non-Mastodon Fediverse server software, always mention that it's part of the Fediverse.
There are people in the Fediverse who read your message, but who don't know the software that you're talking about, and who don't know that it's in the Fediverse. In addition, there are people on Mastodon who are still fully convinced that "Fediverse" refers to an alleged Mastodon network, that the Fediverse is only Mastodon.
Also, always mention that the software you're talking about is connected to Mastodon. If you say it's in the Fediverse, that doesn't automatically imply for everyone that it's connected to Mastodon.
Case in point: Early this year, there were lots of people who were on both Mastodon and Facebook, and who wanted to migrate away from Facebook. So they created Friendica accounts because they had read somewhere that Friendica is "the Facebook alternative in the Fediverse", and they wanted their friends to move to Friendica, too.
Why didn't they invite their friends to Friendica and follow them from Mastodon instead Did they want to move away from Mastodon as well and use something better instead No. Did they want to try Friendica so that they could help their friends with it No.
No, they moved to Friendica because they thought they'd have to in order to be in touch with other Friendica users. After they had learned that the Fediverse is, in fact, not only Mastodon, that there's also Pixelfed and PeerTube and, well, Friendica, they thought that "Fediverse" refers to a bunch of decentralised networks which, however, are completely isolated from one another. They're all totally different things that run totally different software after all. Mastodon users can only follow Mastodon users, Friendica users can only follow Friendica users. Why should it be any different
Well, and then someone told them that, in fact, Mastodon and Friendica are connected. Like, you can follow a Friendica user from Mastodon. That was completely unimaginable to them until they tried following their own Friendica account with their own Mastodon account. And they succeeded. So much to their surprise that they stared at the successfully established connection between a Twitter clone and a Facebook alternative like a deer staring at the high beams of your car at night.
To you, it's only natural that "Fediverse" means everything is connected. But to many Mastodon users, this concept is completely alien until you explicitly mention it to them.
# # # # # # # # # # # Nur da ich nirgendwo ein Zitat sehe (und ich sehe den kompletten Thread auf einem Haufen) und auch keinen Quote-Post (hier auf Hubzilla sind das zwei total verschiedene Sachen, und Hubzilla hat schon immer beides untersttzt das gilt fr die ganze Software-Familie).
Wahrscheinlich wenden Phanpy und Tusky irgendeinen Trick an, der Mastodons Einschrnkungen umgeht, der aber mit etablierten Standards vllig inkompatibel ist. Wahrscheinlich wissen die Entwickler weder von Phanpy noch von Tusky, da es Quote-Posts im Fediverse schon gibt, geschweige denn, wie die gemacht werden. Also hat sich da jemand etwas vllig Neues ausgedacht, das dann nur von ein, zwei Mastodon-Apps untersttzt wird, aber von keiner einzigen Serversoftware, die Quote-Posts eingebaut hat.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #I'm very certain that there are people on Mastodon who

I'm just as convinced that there are people on Mastodon to whom largely the same applies with one difference: They do not only follow Mastodon users. But they think they do. That's because those on Pixelfed, Sharkey, Friendica etc. whom they follow happen to never get caught behaving in ways that Mastodon users may find odd, they never even get caught posting more than 500 characters at once, and they never point out that the Fediverse is, in fact, not only Mastodon. And seriously, if you've never heard of Pixelfed, you may believe that even pixelfed.social is another Mastodon server.
# # # # # # # # # # # # #
Anyone can copy text from anywhere, start a new thread in the Fediverse, copy it in there, mark it as a quote or not, and make fun of the author.

And if that fails, they'll resort to what they've always been doing: screenshots. Not even (streams) and Forte with their advanced permissions systems can keep people from taking screenshots. (Then again, they don't have a quote-post permission setting either because such a thing wouldn't work across the Fediverse anyway.)
In the meantime, Friendica has had quote-posts for a decade and a half, and they've always been used sincerely, believe it or not. Same on Friendica's various descendants.
If the author is not fairly mentioned in the thread, he may never find out about it and be able to defend himselve.

If you're quote-posted from Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) or Forte, you're automatically notified as if you've been mentioned. I'm not sure about those server apps that have implemented Misskey's way of quote-posting, though.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Con Chut Mt Lng Mun Thnh Cng Nhng T May Mn Li Khng Ln No P2

Con Chut Mt Lng Mun Thnh Cng Nhng T May Mn Li Khng Ln No P2 Your browser does not support HTML video. Con Chut Mt Lng Mun Thnh Cng Nhng T May Mn Li Khng Ln No P2

New entry of AI-generated and added to our :

Why Did the So


BYU Signs Kevin Young to Long-Term Contract Extension

The Atlanta Braves are mediocre and have been for too long now

I tried to be a chef, but I burnt everything. Now I just sell existential toast.

Hot Blonde with Long Socks Footjob

Das Traurige ist doch: Die allerallermeisten Mastodon-Nutzer "wissen" aktuell, da es im Fediverse keine Quote-Posts gibt, weil Mastodon keine hat, zumal geschtzt immer noch jeder zweite "wei", da "Fediverse" und "Mastodon" dasselbe meinen und das Fediverse nur aus Mastodon besteht.
Die wenigsten werden diese Ankndigung gelesen haben. Von denen, die sie gelesen haben, werden viele "quote posts from other servers and software" nicht verstehen. Was fr andere Server Mastodon kann doch nicht quote-posten. Und was fr andere Software Was heit andere Software Eine andere Handy-App fr Mastodon Oder meinen die Bluesky Kann Bluesky quote-posten Wenn ja, dann gehrt Bridgy Fed sofort gefediblockt!1!!
Das heit brigens auch, da diese Pseudo-Berechtigung, wer die eigenen Trts quote-posten darf, 99% der Mastodon-Nutzer in Sicherheit wiegen drfte. Die sind absolut berzeugt, da sie damit 100% wasserdicht sicher verhindern knnen, da irgendjemand im Fediverse sie quote-postet. Das wird noch zu vollgemachten Hosen und panikbedingten berreaktionen bis hin zu versuchten (oder gar tatschlichen) Fediblocks gegen ganze Nicht-Mastodon-Instanzen fhren.
berhaupt: Mastodon kann Quote-Posts schon jetzt anzeigen. Das konnte es schon 2016. Nur hat es die bisher noch nicht anstndig formatiert. Ich hoffe, es kommt bald nicht nur mit Quote-Posts wie von Misskey klar, sondern auch mit solchen wie von Friendica.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

10 to 12 actors bowed out of the performance where will be in attendance, but they didn't bow out of the Kennedy Center run, as this NPR article incorrectly claims (I read the CNN article they link). Good context for why the tone deaf administration will applaud a revolution against themselves LOL
it's

How long will the Braves carry Rafael Montero

The Mastodon devs are talking as if either the Fediverse is only Mastodon, or the Fediverse as a whole doesn't have quote-posts.
Neither of this is true. The Fediverse has had quote-posts since July 2nd, 2010 when Mistpark (now known as ) was launched. Mastodon toots have been quote-post-able since Mastodon itself was launched, for when Mastodon was launched, it immediately federated with at least two Fediverse server applications that have quote-posts, namely Friendica and , a fork of a fork of Friendica by Friendica's own creator.
Nowadays, at least Pleroma, Akkoma, all other Pleroma forks, Misskey, Calckey, Firefish, Iceshrimp-JS, Iceshrimp.NET, CherryPick, Sharkey, all other Misskey forks, Mitra, Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte can quote-post Mastodon toots with no problem.
And Mastodon won't be able to stop them. No, seriously, it won't. Not with a non-standard, proprietary, home-brew opt-in or opt-out switch that doesn't tie into anything that the other Fediverse server apps have. And whatever switch Mastodon is working on will not tie into anything that already exists.
Let me put it this way: Hubzilla has the second-most advanced and fine-grained permissions system in the Fediverse. It goes well beyond most people's imagination. It works on three levels: (that's similar to a Mastodon account), (that's "followers" in Mastodon lingo, but Hubzilla doesn't distinguish between followers and followed), . (streams) and Forte are the only ones with an even more advanced and fine-grained permissions system.
But even they don't have a quote-post permission setting. And they have permission settings for just about everything. You want reply control in the Fediverse Hubzilla has reply control, and (streams) and Forte have reply control on steroids. But what they don't have is a quote-posting permission because that's next to impossible to control across the Fediverse even with the most advanced permissions system.
As (professional software developer for almost half a century, designer of two Fediverse protocols, creator of Friendica and Hubzilla, inventor of nomadic identity, creator and maintainer of (streams) and Forte) says: The only way to make your posts un-quote-post-able is by not posting in public and not allowing everyone in the Fediverse full access to your posts. Set your "Who can quote" however you want, I'll always be able to quote-post all your public posts with no problem and with no resistance.
So what chance does Mastodon have then Mastodon which doesn't even know what permissions are Developed by Eugen Rochko who actually has a history of head-butting with Mike Macgirvin, and who would never take any step towards anything that Mike has ever developed
I'm commenting from Hubzilla right now, and I'm also on (streams). And I can tell you: If you make any of your posts "un-quote-post-able", this still won't make my Share buttons on Hubzilla and (streams) disappear.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
I've seen no mention (perhaps I missed it) of who exactly gets to --> create <-- these "remote quote posts"
"remote" implies no one on my local instance

A common misconception on Mastodon is that the Fediverse doesn't have quote-posts. Anywhere.
As a matter of fact, however:
None of them have included quote-posts with the explicit intent to harass Mastodon users.
To give you an example: Friendica was launched 15 years ago, more than five years before Mastodon. It already had quote-posts back then. When Mastodon was launched, it was Mastodon that connected itself to Friendica and not the other way around. And ever since that very moment, Friendica was able to quote-post Mastodon toots.
If Mastodon adds its own, proprietary, home-brew, non-standard quote-post opt-in or opt-out, ball of the above will still be able to quote-post any public Mastodon toots with zero resistanceb. In fact, they won't even know whether a Mastodon user has opted out of or not opted into being quote-post-able.
To make matters worse, the Fediverse has at least two different quote-post technologies.
Misskey and the various Forkeys put RE: <URL of the quote-posted message> into a message, and it's automatically rendered as a quote-post. It references the original, and when the original is edited, so is the quote-post. I don't know whether or not the quote-posted user is notified.
Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte generate a dumb copy of the original message from an eight-digit reference number. It comes with a "headline" containing the name of the original poster, profile picture included, and a link to the original message. Since it's a dumb copy, the quote-post will not change when the original is edited. The quote-posted user is notified similarly to being mentioned when being quote-posted.
Immediate, effective counter-measures are completely impossible against both.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I have found a few guides for alt-text and image descriptions, but they may contradict each other.

The existing guides on how to write alt-text in social media aren't worth the effort. They don't tell you anything the guides above, at least not beyond walking you through the process of adding alt-text to images in certain social media, step by step. Most of them only cover American corporate social networks and social media (Facebook, Instagram, , LinkedIn). A few add TikTok. Very few also add Mastodon, but even they only walk you through adding alt-text on Mastodon's standard Web interface. They do not deal with Mastodon's special alt-text culture. They assume that all social networks and social media have either the exact same alt-text culture as websites and blogs or none at all. And literally not a single guide covers anything in the Fediverse that is not Mastodon.
Hence my wiki plans. For one, I want to explain alt-text and image descriptions in the Fediverse as a whole. I won't include step-by-step walkthroughs because I can't possibly know every Web UI and every phone app out there, but I will point out that alt-text doesn't work exactly the same everywhere in the Fediverse as on Mastodon. Besides, I want to take Mastodon's alt-text culture into consideration which is being forced upon the whole rest of the Fediverse. Finally, I want to write guides on certain aspects of describing images and writing alt-text and not only compile the information that's strewn about the Web in lots of individual guides, but also link to these guides as references and point out when they contradict each other.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Just a pity that this one particular guide doesn't really work in the Fediverse.
First of all, the concept of "too long alt-text" or "too detailed alt-text" doesn't exist in the Fediverse, at least not on Mastodon where accessibility standards were defined by overly eager laypeople.
Next, there are no decorative images in Fediverse posts.
Also, only few Fediverse server applications support adding HTML tags to posts. The vast majority of Fediverse users, especially everyone on Mastodon, have a dedicated text entry field for adding alt-texts to image file attachments.
Finally, SEO does not matter in the Fediverse at all.
The whole guide is about alt-text on static websites designed by paid professional Web developers. As opposed to social media users, two out of three of whom can only post plain text.
All this is why I've started putting together a wiki specifically for alt-text and image descriptions in the Fediverse.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Was, wenn das Bild selbst der Kontext des Posts ist
Was, wenn das Bild etwas zeigt, was Sehende so neugierig macht, da sie auf den Kontext pfeifen und sich das Bild in allen Details ansehen, ob die jetzt fr den Kontext relevant sind oder nicht Es heit doch, da Barrierefreiheit und Inklusion bedeuten, da Nichtsehende immer exakt dieselben Chancen haben mssen, dasselbe zu tun, was auch Sehende tun. Was, wenn jetzt jemand, der blind oder sehbehindert ist, so neugierig auf das Thema und das Bild ist Und wenn das Bild dann auch noch etwas so Unbekanntes, Obskures zeigt, da niemand, der das Bild nicht klar vor Augen hat, auch nur eine grobe Vorstellung hat, wie irgendetwas auf dem Bild aussieht
Die Gedanken habe ich mir schon vor ziemlich langer Zeit gemacht und meine Beschreibungen daran ausgerichtet. Ich meine, ich poste nicht gerade Katzenfotos.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # Fr mich hinkt der Vergleich mit dem Telefon.
Wenn ich eins meiner Bilder aus einer virtuellen Welt jemandem ber das Telefon beschreiben wollte, knnte ich diejenige Person vorher fragen, was sie ber virtuelle Welten allgemein und ber diese virtuellen Welten ganz speziell schon wei und was ich vorher erklren mu. Und ich knnte fragen, wie detailliert ich das Bild beschreiben soll. Und dann knnte ich mich ganz individuell auf diese eine Person einstellen.
Und wenn ich dann angefangen habe, und der Person wird es dann doch zu detailliert, dann kann sie mich jederzeit unterbrechen.
Wenn ich es aber im Fediverse beschreiben soll, dann mu ich es beschreiben fr mglicherweise Millionen an Fediverse-Nutzern und Milliarden an Internet-Nutzern. Die kann ich nicht vorher fragen, auf die kann ich mich also nicht vorher einstellen. Da mu das, was ich sowieso liefere, sofort passen. Und unterbrechen knnen die mich auch nicht. Selbst wenn sie es knnten, gibt's vielleicht jemanden, der gerade eben nicht will, da ich aufhre, sondern, da ich bis zum Ende weitererklre und weiterbeschreibe.
Das heit: Statt fr nur eine Person mu ich fr eine unbekannte Anzahl an Personen schreiben. Und vor und whrend des Beschreibens gibt es keine Dialogmglichkeit.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # Nur was, wenn z. B. ich ein Bild auf eine Art und Weise beschreibe, die ausgerechnet dir nicht pat
Stell dir vor, du bekommst von mir einen Bildpost mit einem Alt-Text, der exakt 1500 Zeichen lang ist. Etwa 1400 davon sind Bildbeschreibung, aber trotzdem ohne Text-Transkripte. Der Rest verweist auf eine weitere, lange Bildbeschreibung im Post selbst. Der Post ist verborgen hinter einer Zusammenfassung mit einer Inhaltswarnung vor einem extrem langen Post. ber 62.000 Zeichen, davon sind ber 60.000 Bildbeschreibung. Du klappst die Zusammenfassung auf, und tatschlich: ber 60.000 Zeichen an Bildbeschreibung.
Wre das fr dich immer noch "besser als nichts" Wre das immer noch in deinem Sinne
So einen Post habe ich im letzten Herbst brigens tatschlich gemacht. Es hat mich zwei volle Tage gedauert, das eine Bild zu beschreiben. Ich kann gern drauf verlinken, allerdings ist der Post fast komplett auf Englisch.
Du sagst: "Beschreibe, was du siehst!" Das habe ich getan.
Aber: Ich sehe mehr als all die Sehenden, die meinen Post sehen. Meine eigenen Bilder sind Renderings aus kaum bekannten virtuellen 3-D-Welten. Ich beschreibe meine Bilder nicht anhand dessen, was ich auf den Bildern sehe, schon gar nicht anhand dessen, was die frs Fediverse eingeschrumpften Bilder noch zeigen. Ich beschreibe sie anhand dessen, was ich in-world sehe.
Auf besagtem Bild steht an zwei Stellen eine Teleportkonsole mit zehn whlbaren Zielen. Die nimmt wahrscheinlich jeweils keine 200 Pixel ein. Kein Sehender knnte sie als Teleportkonsole identifizieren. Ich aber kann sie in allen Details sehen und beschreiben und sogar die 14 Textschnipsel darauf wortwrtlich transkribieren, und ich tue das auch. Wohlgemerkt, auf dem Bild ist gar nicht zu sehen, da auf den Konsolen berhaupt Text drauf ist, weil die so winzig sind. Das einzige, was ich mir gespart habe, ist eine superdetaillierte Beschreibung der Ansicht von oben, die als Karte verwendet wird. Dieses Mal wollte ich aus guten Grnden keine Bilder auf dem Bild in allen Details beschreiben.
Das ist brigens mein normaler Detailgrad bei meinen eigenen Bildern. Die Lnge der Bildbeschreibung variiert allerdings mit dem Detailgrad des Bildes. Portraits arrangiere ich inzwischen so, da es mglichst wenig oder besser noch gar keinen Hintergrund gibt. Aber dann habe ich einen Avatar im Detail zu beschreiben, von den ntigen Erklrungen ganz zu schweigen. Bei dem Bild, das ich oben erwhnt habe, entfallen 40.000 Zeichen alleine auf das eine Gebude im Bild, das kein bichen wie ein reales Gebude aussieht.
Diesen Aufwand wrde ich brigens nicht betreiben, wenn ich keine guten und sogar meines Erachtens ziemlich fundierten Grnde dafr htte.
Ich habe dieses Jahr noch kein einziges Bild gepostet. Ich arbeite seit Ende letzten Jahres immer mal wieder an den Beschreibungen fr eine Reihe von Portraits in verschiedenen Outfits. Jeder Post wird mehrere Bilder mit jeweils mehreren Portraits enthalten, alle vom selben Avatar in derselben Pose, aber in leicht unterschiedlichen Outfits. Die gemeinsame Prambel fr die langen Bildbeschreibungen steht bereits. Aber damit die Leute die Bilder und die Bildbeschreibungen auch verstehen, beginnt sie mit ber 12.000 Zeichen an Erklrungen, bevor irgendetwas Visuelles beschrieben wird.
CC:
# # # # # # # # # # # # #

side long take

side long take

Colorado Rockies News: Ryan Rolisons long journey to the Rockies

Again, I'm NOT talking about the technological side. I'm NOT talking about how certain platforms are rendering alt-texts.
I'm talking about describing an image for one person whom I know vs describing an image for billions of people whom I don't know. That's a huge difference.
Let's suppose I've rendered a picture in a 3-D virtual world. A very obscure one. (Because that's what I normally do.) Chances are people won't get that image without explanations, simply because they don't know anything about these worlds.
If I want to describe that image to my friend Joe over a landline phone, I can ask Joe what he knows about virtual worlds, and whether he needs some explanations first.
If Joe says yes, he'd like some explanations, I can take a deep breath and explain away. If the explanations go too much in-depth, or if they become too big an info dump for him to handle, Joe can stop me while I'm explaining.
After explaining, I can ask Joe what I shall describe to him. Only what's important Everything because Joe is super-curious about these virtual worlds, and he wants to know all the details so he can imagine what that virtual world looks like
And Joe can answer. If Joe answers that he does not want a super-detailed description of everything, I don't have to give him a super-detailed description of everything. And if my description becomes too detailed, Joe can rein me in and tell me to stop.
If I want to describe that image when I post it in the Fediverse, it's very different.

The result: I have to deliver the maximum right away. I have to start with a whole lot of explanations because someone somewhere out there probably won't understand my image without these explanations. And then I have to continue with an extremely detailed visual description because someone somewhere out there may want or even require one. Regardless of what everyone else wants.
It's like describing an image to Joe over a landline phone, but I don't know Joe, I don't know what Joe wants or needs, I don't even know that it's Joe on the other end, there may be other people around Joe's phone who want to hear the description, too, and someone has cut off the microphone in Joe's phone first, only to re-activate it after I'm done describing the image three hours later.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

This is the lens I shot a roll (of 120) on, a Carl Jena DDR f2.8 80mm lens. Till now I been shooting, like, Dianas & , or my plastic TLR (waist viewfinder I struggle), a folding viewfinder one
This is a proper & I also got a viewfinder, hope it works!
of

The long lens arrived! My first roll with my Pentacon Six is in the mail to the developer, well see how the 80mm Zeiss looks. It shoots only twelve 6 x 6 cm exposures per 120 film roll. This lens is 180mm focal length, auto or manual aperture (so you can focus wide open) setting. Now to find lens caps front and rear.
of

Einige von den Probleme sind ja in den "Nachfolgern" aus den 2020ern gelst, also (streams) und Forte.
Hashtags kann man meines Wissens "folgen", aber nicht wie auf Mastodon als eine Art Akteur und durch Klicken, sondern mit einem Feld in den Einstellungen, wo man Hashtags eintragen kann.
Alt-Text kann man weiterhin in den Bildeinbettungscode reinschreiben. Aber zum einen kann das jetzt neben BBcode auch Markdown/HTML sein, wenn einem das vertrauter ist. Zum anderen mu man das nicht mehr. Statt dessen kann man schon beim Hochladen eines Bildes in den Filespace einen Alt-Text eintragen oder auch hinterher in der Bilder-App. Und dann kann man dasselbe Bild mit demselben Alt-Text immer und immer wieder einbauen, ohne den Alt-Text mehr als einmal schreiben zu mssen. Das wiederum geht auf Mastodon nicht.
berhaupt ist da einiges eleganter gelst als auf Hubzilla. ActivityPub mu nicht mehr aktiviert werden. Die Rechteverwaltung ist jetzt auch deutlich einfacher zu handhaben, weil sie jetzt gebaut ist fr das reale Fediverse der 2020er und nicht mehr fr eine Vision eines Fediverse, das es Mitte der 2010er geben sollte, das so aber nie kam.
diaspora* knnen beide nicht mehr. Der Aufwand, noch ein weiteres nichtnomadisches Protokoll mitzuschleppen und Zot ab Version 6 darauf auszulegen, hat sich wahrscheinlich nicht mehr gelohnt. (streams) basiert weiterhin auf Nomad, wie Zot jetzt heit, aber ActivityPub ist so gut integriert, da es Teil des Kerns geworden ist und standardmig aktiviert. Und Forte erschlgt alles mit ActivityPub und kennt gar kein anderes Protokoll mehr.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # If you really want some criticism:
Alt-text really should not contain line breaks, nor should it contain the quotations marks on your keyboard. Neither are standard alt-text elements. And just because Mastodon renders them with no problems, doesn't mean everything does. Not even in the Fediverse.
As for line breaks: Some screen readers will take each new line for a whole new alt-text and therefore a whole new image. And they will read multi-line alt-texts as alt-texts of multiple images, e.g. starting each line with, "Graphic."
As for quotation marks: For one, just like line breaks, they're actually completely useless for the actual target audience of alt-text, namely blind or visually-impaired people. Screen readers don't read out quotation marks. I mean, how should they
But if a frontend doesn't render quotation marks properly, screen readers will read out gobbledygook where there's a quotation mark because they will see gobbledygook in the place of that quotation mark, because the frontend renders quotation marks as gobbledygook.
For example, there's Hubzilla which is what I'm posting from right now, so it's very much part of the Fediverse. Hubzilla renders quotation marks in alt-text as their HTML entities, namely &quot. A screen reader will read out every single quotation mark as, "And quot."
And then there are two descendants of Hubzilla made by Hubzilla's own creator, (streams) and Forte. The same quotation marks that you have on whatever keyboard you use, they use as alt-text delimiters. When the first quotation mark comes, they think it's the end of the alt-text, and they stop parsing and rendering the alt-text. For them, your alt-text ends right after, "Panel 1:"
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I'm not talking about the technical side.
That is, you may not have noticed, but I'm not posting from Mastodon. I'm on Hubzilla where things are quite a bit different. Images aren't file attachments they're embedded into posts in-line using BBcode markup like in classic bulletin board forums. Alt-text has no dedicated text entry box instead, it's manually woven into the image embedding code.
No, what I mean is that here in the Fediverse, you can't describe an image like describing it to a friend over the phone. Open the link in my post. (If it looks like it may be a link, it actually is one, even if it isn't a URL in plain sight. I can do embedded links on Hubzilla, too.)
Anyway, if you describe an image to a friend over a landline phone with no image transfer, your friend can talk back. Your friend can even talk back before you start describing. You can ask your friend what they need to know, what they want to know. You can do that beforehand. And then you can describe the image in exactly the way that your friend needs.
In the Fediverse, you describe your images for potentially millions of Fediverse users and billions of Internet users. You can't first go around and ask them all, every last one of them, what they need to know and what they want to know. You have to perfectly cater to everyone's needs without even knowing anyone's actual needs because you can't know everyone's needs.
Describing for one person over the phone is one-size-fits-one. It's tailor-made for one person. Describing in the Fediverse has to be one-size-fits-all at first try, right off the bat.
This may not matter if you post a simple real-life cat photo. But I post renderings from super-obscure 3-D virtual worlds. Nobody knows what anything in my images look like until they can either see the images themselves, or I describe everything in these images to them. So this matters a whole lot in my case.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Only that "my best" has actually led to unimaginable extremes.
They say an image is worth a thousand words. I've once in over 10,000 words. Over 60,000 characters. The post is so long that, I think, Misskey and its various forks have rejected it, as have Pleroma and Akkoma. It took me two full days, morning to evening, to describe that one image, in-world research included.
And I actually had to limit myself. For once, I did not give in-depth descriptions of the images within that image, especially not beyond what's actually visible in these images. That's because I've discovered that if I were to do that, I'd have to describe dozens of images in one particular image (in my image) and potentially over a hundred images in these, even though they're so small that they're technically invisible. It would have taken me months to write all that. And it would have been futile anyway. My character limit is over 16 million, but Mastodon rejects posts over 100,000 characters, and in the few places that do accept posts with millions of characters, next to nobody cares about image descriptions.
I haven't posted a new in-world image in over half a year. I've been working on-and-off on the descriptions for a series of rather simple avatar portraits since last autumn.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Of course, this means that the more obscure the content of your image is, the more in-depth you will have to go. At worst, there's nothing in your image of which non-sighted people know what it looks like unless you describe it. Simply mentioning that it's there is not sufficient.
My own original images aren't even photographs, nor are they pieces of art that represent real life. They're renderings from 3-D virtual worlds, very obscure 3-D virtual worlds even. Nobody knows what anything in these world looks like unless they can see it in my images. At the same time, however, chances are that they become so curious about these virtual worlds that they also become curious about everything in the image, not just what matters within the context of the post. That is, sometimes the image itself as a whole is the context. Either way, this means I can't just focus on certain elements in the image in my descriptions. I have to describe everything.
So I've gotten to a point at which even filling the alt-text character limit forced by Mastodon, Misskey and their respective forks (they cut longer alt-texts off at the 1,500-character mark) doesn't cut it. All my original images have two descriptions now. In addition to the one in the alt-text that's very limited, there is another one in the post that's more or less fully detailed, that contains transcripts of all text within the borders of the image, and that also comes with all explanations that I deem necessary. Since I don't have a character limit to worry about (the limit is defined by the database field rather than a hard-coded or configurable number), this description is likely to grow well over a hundred times longer than typical alt-text.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

Thn Ti h phm xung dn gian ri vng th lng ngi dn v ci kt P1/2.

Thn Ti h phm xung dn gian ri vng th lng ngi dn v ci kt P 1/2. Your browser does not support HTML video. Thn Ti h phm xung dn gian ri vng th lng ngi dn v ci kt P 1/2. xin cho

Report: Devin Bookers role in coaching interviews signals long-term commitment from Suns

but yes, I think the alt text in those posts you linked is fine and not too much

The alt-text is fine How about the long descriptions in the post itself
Again: I've described all these images twice. One description is in the alt-text. It's the short one with no text transcripts and no explanations (because explanations don't belong into alt-texts).
The other one is in the post itself, not in the alt-text. If you look at the post at the source, open the summary/content warning, and then scroll beyond the image(s). Right below, there are the long image descriptions.
Again: Would you say it's okay to describe one image in over 60,000 characters and over 10,000 words Would you say it's okay to spend two full days, morning to evening, describing one image and researching for the description Would you say it's okay for an image description to be so long that it has two levels of headlines Would you say it's okay to start a long image description with well over 5,000 characters of explanations before any visuals are described because these explanations are necessary to understand the image and the description Would you say it's okay to use over 3,000 characters to describe one single object in an image which even sighted people would have a hard time spotting without the description, and to transcribe the 14 individual bits of text on that object, even though they're so tiny in the image that they're basically invisible
After all, I myself think I've made lots of mistakes in that description.
# # # # # # # # # # # If you don't mind the learning curve (because it handles nothing like Twitter or Mastodon), maybe is something for you. It's the youngest member of a family of Fediverse server applications that started 15 years ago with a Facebook alternative that's now known as Friendica, and that also gave us Hubzilla and the streams repository.
It's written in PHP with a little side of JavaScript for post formatting, so no fumbling around with exotic dependencies. Administration is fairly easy, especially upgrading the whole thing for which there's a dedicated script. At the same time, it's both very powerful and very secure.
And it's probably the most technologically advanced Fediverse server software out there. After all, it's the first one to implement nomadic identity with nothing but ActivityPub.
# # # # # # # # #
but more detail cant hurt.

I think we aren't thinking in the same dimensions.
How about
How about
In case you're on a phone: If the above looks like links, that's because it is links. The links lead to two of my image posts which, while not originally on Mastodon, are still in the Fediverse, and copies of both can actually be found on mastodon.social. The first one can be found under the hashtag # it's the third one (or fourth, counting this one) from the top. The second one can be found under the hashtag # it's the one at the bottom.
I just wrote this page because there was no documentation on it really,

Oh, there's plenty of documentation on alt-text and image descriptions. For example:

Beware, though: They may contradict each other.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # So the more detailed it is, the better Would you say it's possible to describe an image in too many details, regardless of circumstances (e.g. what the expected audience may be curious about)
Also, what about the rule that any and all text within the borders of an image must be transcribed 100% verbatim There is text on the T-shirt, that's why I'm asking. I myself am someone who always transcribes every last bit of text within my original images. That said, the transcripts usually only go into the long description in the post itself (the character limit here is so high, it's fully negligible but my original images always get two descriptions each). Most of the time, there simply isn't enough room for them in the alt-text (or what of it Mastodon, Misskey and their respective forks let through at full length).
I'm also asking because I plan to write my own wiki on alt-texts and image descriptions specifically for the Fediverse. It will be a wiki because it will be too detailed for only one article or page.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Last updated: 2025-06-08






Joke Documents