Today's show - Long Go Like
Makes me wonder where I'd end up:
Guess that'd be lawful evil or something.
# # # # # # # # # # #What if I switched from describing my original images twice...
..."short" (still fairly long) alt-text + fully detailed long description in the post text...
...to describing them three times...
...same as above, but I'd keep these two descriptions to myself, just in case, plus an actually short alt-text (512 characters or fewer for Misskey compatibility or even 200 characters or fewer) that'd be the only description that I'd publish right away
There would be no excessively long alt-text (at least not right away). There would be no tens of thousands of characters of long description in the post (at least not right away) although I couldn't guarantee that the post won't exceed 500 characters.
At the same time, this would give me "notes" that I could source if someone asked me to describe some detail. And if some Mastodon alt-text activist came and complained that my description is lacking all over, I could replace the short alt-text with the already existing long alt-text and add the long description to the post text right away.
Granted, my workload would increase some more. Most of it might end up for nothing most of the time. And nobody would get text transcripts unless they'd ask for them because I couldn't possibly fit them all into just a few hundred characters.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
On the one hand, I feel a great pressure to describe and explain everything in advance. That way, nobody would ever have to ask me to describe a detail or explain something. And nobody, not even the most die-hard Mastodon alt-text activists, could say that I'm careless and that I only do the very bare minimum or not even that. There are people out there who are eager to block everyone who doesn't describe their images enough or lecture them or attack them for being lazy.
The last time I've described an image for Hubzilla, I refused to write detailed descriptions for the images within that image. That would have escalated and cost me weeks to describe them all because I'd also have had to describe dozens of images within these images and even more images within these images. Mind you, someone who travels to the place I've described couldn't actually see what I'd have described because the images in my image themselves have a limited resolution. But I genuinely felt bad for not describing these images.
Besides, if I only described my original images once, namely in the alt-text, and then briefly and concisely, and if someone came and asked me to describe certain elements at greater detail, I couldn't always do that. Sometimes I couldn't go back to the place shown in the image and take a closer look and write a more detailed description because that place simply doesn't exist anymore, or it has been modified, and it doesn't look like the image anymore. The details that I'd have to take a closer look at are gone.
On the other hand, my experience is also that posting more than 500 characters at once reduces my reach on Mastodon tremendously. I think I must have over 700 or 800 followers, but my reach on Mastodon is similar to that of someone with not even a dozen followers. And I don't think that's because what I post is so uninteresting or because of my rather controversial thoughts about the Fediverse, accessibility in the Fediverse, image descriptions etc.
Basically, I can't possibly post images without risking being sanctioned by anyone.
I've briefly considered putting my long descriptions into separate HTML documents and linking to them. In theory, that would reduce the length of my image posts greatly. However, this is entirely untested. I don't know if it'd work at all, i.e. open the HTML document in someone's browser rather than downloading it to their device as a file. I don't know either if a plain HTML document with no style sheet would be accessible to screen reader users.
What I do know, though, is that Mastodon hates external links with a flaming passion. That's also because the vast majority of Mastodon users is always on phones, using dedicated Mastodon apps. They hate their browser popping open when they tap a link all the same. Also, they tend to distrust external links because the linked documents or pages may not be sufficiently accessible.
Everything would be a whole lot easier if there were Fediverse-wide standards for image descriptions that take the requirements of blind or visually-impaired people into consideration as well as Mastodon's unique culture. If these standards were known to everyone both on Mastodon and in the non-Mastodon Fediverse. If everyone from blind or visually-impaired users to neurodivergent users to fully sighted alt-text activists agreed upon these standards all the same. And if these standards covered extreme edge-cases like mine as well. If there was a generally agreed-upon consensus on a whole lot of questions like:
Worse yet: I've recently found out that none of the things above must be discussed on Mastodon. Ever. You must not discuss that stuff. You must do it. But you must do it right off the bat. For whichever individual definition of "right".
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
This means that you can use a whole lot of microblogging server applications with Mastodon clients. You can even use Friendica with some Mastodon clients. But then you're limited to the features which Mastodon has as well because the Mastodon client API doesn't support any features that Mastodon doesn't have. Why should it, after all
At the end of the day, the Mastodon client API is designed and maintained by the Mastodon developers. It's them who decide what it can do and what it can't do. For one, they won't waste their time adding features to it that Mastodon itself doesn't have. Besides, if they did, they'd support Mastodon's direct competition and strengthen their advantages over Mastodon when they could throw rocks into their paths instead like they've always done.
This, by the way, is also one reason why both the developers of Hubzilla and the developer of (streams) and Forte refuse to implement the Mastodon client API. It simply wouldn't cover at least 90% of the features of these server applications, including features which you'll need all the time, everyday. That, and they don't want their software to end up at the mercy of Mastodon's developers and Mastodon's product politics by making it depend on Mastodon's technology. They'd rather have no native mobile app at all (and currently they do).
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Both is neither possible with hashtags elsewhere in the post nor when there's something else than hashtags in the last line.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
The thinking behind this has always been one of these:
Oh, and Mastodon hasn't failed being more open. Mastodon has decided to not be more open. It's a fully intentional design decision and part of Mastodon's scheme to either make the rest of the Fediverse look bad or exclude it from "the Fediverse".
# # # # # # # # # #
This is also because next to everyone in the Fediverse who isn't sighted is on Mastodon and only on Mastodon. And Mastodon has no support for groups whatsoever. Discussing things would be much easier if Mastodon had had full-blown group support, either simply compatible with existing Fediverse group solutions or with its own solution that's fully compatible with what else supports groups, already before Musk announced he'd take over Twitter. Then Mastodon's culture would include groups rather than being completely oblivious of groups.
What I know, though, is that blind and visually-impaired Mastodon users are happy to have some alt-texts. On the commercial social platforms, they got nothing. So they generally don't have sky-high demands. In fact, unless it's a matter of life and death, they don't really care how accurate a description is because they can't verify the accuracy anyway. Also, some like a bit of whimsy with their alt-texts.
But I'm rather safe than sorry. Besides, it isn't the blind or visually-impaired people who police alt-texts and image descriptions. Mastodon's alt-text police are fully sighted. And it's them who sanction you and who decide whether you're allowed to have any reach in the Fediverse, based on how you describe your images.
However, due to Mastodon's limitations, the alt-text police don't talk to each other either, nor do they ever talk to anyone who isn't sighted. So everyone enforces different quality standards while believing their standards are the official gold standards.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # The alt-text for the above image post CW: long (over 1,700 characters) View article View summary
If, for reasons that are beyond my control, the image in the post above should not have an alt-text, here is the actual alt-text from the original.
# # # # # # Quote-post of an actual image post of mine, complete with image alt-text and a long image description in the post itself CW: long (over 64,000 characters), quote-post, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
If you really believe I never describe any of my images, here's a counter-proof: my last post with an actual image here on this Hubzilla channel before I moved my image-posting to (streams). It's from May 16th, 2024. By the way, the image should be embedded within the post, right above the "Image description" headline.
The image has an alt-text of exactly 1,500 characters with as detailed an image description as I could possibly fit into it, and in addition, it has a long image description in the post text itself that measures over 60,000 characters. It has to be the longest description for a single image in the history of the Fediverse. It took me two whole days, morning to evening, to research for and write this image description, and I wrote the alt-text in the morning of the following day. All without using any AI.
Fair warning: The image description is outdated in the ways that dimensions and colours are described, and parts of the explanations may be factually wrong. Besides, I didn't try hard enough to either avoid or explain technical and jargon terms. But I didn't know better back then, and I don't go around and edit all my image descriptions whenever I learn something new.
I could quote-post more image posts with alt-texts and either explanations or full descriptions in the post if this one post doesn't convince you. But this is just about my only image post that has nothing potentially triggering in the image. All the others have potentially triggering eye contact which would end up on older Mastodon versions and probably in many Mastodon apps in plain sight.
RE:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Your own posts aren't any better anyway CW: long (over 1,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta, hashtag meta View article View summary
On the other hand, when I look at your personal timeline, it's obvious that you've never really arrived on Mastodon. You break all kinds of rules. You break alt-text and image-describing rules, and you break Mastodon's cultural rules.
You write alt-texts in multiple paragraphs. You almost never use CWs, not for posts over 500 characters, not for US or Canadian politics, not for wars, never. You rarely use hashtags, and when you do, you sometimes put them in-line instead of all into the bottom line. In-line hashtags are inconvenient for screen reader users.
You boost image posts without checking whether the images have alt-texts, much less whether the alt-texts are accurate, sufficiently detailed and in line with the existing alt-text and image description rules. You boost posts about potentially disturbing topics that have no CWs.
So don't come lecturing me if your own doings are likely to get you silently muted and blocked by other Mastodon users left and right.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I've described all my images since I've learned about alt-texts, and I put more effort and knowledge into them than anyone on Mastodon CW: long (almost 8,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
Now listen here.
Ever since I've learned about alt-texts and image descriptions, I've described all my images. And unlike most Mastodon users, I've improved my image-describing further and further.
Whenever I learned something new about image descriptions, be it a rule, a guideline, a good practice or a Mastodon preference, I used this new knowledge in new image descriptions and declared all my previous image descriptions obsolete. And I've learned a lot over the years.
I've learned from Mastodon that if explanations are necessary to understand an image, they must be delivered immediately with the image post. Ever since, I've explained everything in my images that needs explaining. And since all my image posts are about extremely obscure niche topics, they need a whole lot of explanations.
I've learned from a physically disabled Mastodon user that not everyone can access alt-texts. She, for example, can't. Thus, explanations in the alt-text are lost to her. I've learned from her that explanations go into the post text. I've put all my explanations into the post text ever since.
I've learned from Mastodon that Mastodon tends to love long, detailed image descriptions. Considering how obscure the contents of my original images are and how nobody knows what anything in them looks like if they don't see it, I came to the conclusion that someone somewhere out there might need full, detailed descriptions. I've given my original images full, detailed descriptions ever since.
I've learned from various sources that alt-text must only describe what's important within the context of a post. But judging from my observations of Mastodon, its culture and its love for long alt-texts override this rule. If someone wants to know about all the small details in your images, the context doesn't matter. Thus, how detailed my image descriptions are depends on whether or not I have to expect someone being curious about the details.
I've learned by experimentation that Mastodon truncates long external alt-texts from outside at the 1,500-character mark. Also, Hubzilla (where I am) can only display so many characters of alt-text, and alt-text cannot be scrolled. Since the audience of my alt-texts is pretty much exclusively on Mastodon, I've put the full, long, detailed image descriptions into the post text.
I've learned from a blog post that alt-texts must never contain line breaks. Line breaks in alt-texts have a nasty side-effect for screen reader users: After each line break, screen readers assume that they're reading a new alt-text for a new image. And they start whatever they consider an individual image alt-text with something like, "Graphic." Thus, I write all my alt-texts as one single paragraph.
I've learned from another blog post, as well as personal experience with various Fediverse server applications, that alt-texts must never contain the double quotes commonly found on keyboards. Different frontends may misbehave in different ways, some fail very ungracefully. Thus, I no longer use these quotes in my alt-texts.
I've learned from Mastodon that even if there is an image description in the post text, there must always be an accurate and sufficiently detailed image description in the alt-text regardless. Otherwise you risk being sanctioned. I have described all my original images twice ever since: with a long and fully detailed description in the post text and a shorter description in the alt-text.
I've learned from blog posts and websites about alt-texts that text in images must be transcribed verbatim. However, nowhere that I've seen this rule written down, I've seen it mention text that's unreadable in the image while the author knows what's written there. My conclusion is that there is no exception for these texts. I tend to have many such texts. Thus, I transcribe all bits and pieces of text within the borders of my images if I have a way to read them. And I usually have.
I've learned from other blog posts about alt-texts that colours must not only be mentioned in image descriptions, but they must also be described. After all, blind people cannot be expected to know what e.g. Burgundy red is. Also, dimensions must be given not simply in absolute measures, but relatively to what else is in the image or to something that everyone is familiar with, namely the human body. Unfortunately, I've learned that so recently that I only have one original image post in which I make use of these techniques hence, all my older original image posts count as obsolete.
I've learned from yet elsewhere that races must not be mentioned, and genders must not be assumed. I abide by both when describing meme images. My original images, on the other hand, never contain actual human beings. Whenever I show an avatar, it's always one of my avatars whose gender I have personally defined, and these avatars can't really emulate real-life human phenotypes.
Most of the above has never been taken into consideration by anyone on Mastodon. I'm literally the only one in the Fediverse who takes describing images to such levels.
But I go beyond alt-texts and image descriptions.
I've learned from Mastodon that if there's something, anything in a post of yours that might disturb anyone in some way, the post requires a Mastodon-style content warning that mentions in which way the post is disturbing. Here on Hubzilla, that's a summary. It's the same thing, and Hubzilla had summaries before Mastodon had CWs.
From observing both Mastodon and the Web outside the Fediverse, I've compiled a list of potentially triggering topics. Even excluding national/state/provincial/regional politics, I've gathered 111 of these so far. I do my best to include each one whenever necessary. On top of that, I add CWs for many things I post about because I guess I go onto people's nerves when I post about them (the Fediverse, alt-text, image descriptions, hashtags, character limits, quote-posts, actual quote-posting etc.).
However, Hubzilla is not a Twitter wannabe. It's more like Facebook or blogging software. It only offers a summary (Mastodon: CW) field for posts and DMs, but not for comments (it has two different editors for when you reply and when you don't). I could try to add a summary (Mastodon: CW) using a pair of BBcode tags, and I've done so here, but I know from personal experience that the summary tags do not translate to a Mastodon CW in comments. I'd add an individual CW to each one of my comments, but Mastodon users will neither get an actual CW nor understand that I've tried.
So I double almost all my CW'd topics up with an appropriate set of hashtags. This is in line with the culture where I am: Here on Hubzilla and in its whole software family, we don't force poster-side CWs upon each other. Instead, we have them automatically generated for ourselves, reader-side, tailored to our individual needs. But this requires keywords to trigger the automated hiding of content behind CWs.
Also, I know just what may disturb people. The best example is eye contact. You think that eye contact can only be triggering in full-face portraits of a person looking directly at the viewer Wrong! It's triggering if there's at least one eye in the image. I've been told that some people in the autistic spectrum can detect an eye in an image if it's only a tiny fraction of a pixel. I have to expect this to extend to other potentially triggering things as well.
Thus, if it's potentially triggering and somewhere within the borders of one of my images, even if it's hardly discernible or completely invisible to the neurotypical, I still consider the whole image potentially triggering, and I treat the image and the whole post as such.
In fact, I've stopped posting potentially triggering images here on Hubzilla altogether. That's because Hubzilla has no way of making Mastodon blank an image out. And not long ago, Mastodon's CWs only hid the post text, but not the images belonging to a post. I can't rule out that certain Mastodon apps still behave this way. So I can't even use CWs to hide a triggering image. This is why I only ever post images on (streams) now: (streams) makes Mastodon blank images out when a post contains one or two certain hashtags.
Again, nobody on Mastodon goes even only nearly that far.
Please tell me in which ways exactly this is still insufficient.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
- 1,400 characters in alt-text describe the image, but with no explanations and with no text transcripts
- Another 100 characters notify the reader of a long, detailed description in the post itself
- 60,000+ characters (you've read that right, over sixty thousand) in the post text describe the image at full detail, even more than full detail because they cover details that aren't even visible at the image's resolution, complete with extensive explanations and 20+ individual text transcripts
- Especially the latter description tries hard to adhere to as many image description rules and guidelines that I've read in the past as possible
- When I learn about another image description rule/guideline, I promptly declare both the alt-text and the long description obsolete
Guess that'd be lawful evil or something.
# # # # # # # # # # #What if I switched from describing my original images twice...
..."short" (still fairly long) alt-text + fully detailed long description in the post text...
...to describing them three times...
...same as above, but I'd keep these two descriptions to myself, just in case, plus an actually short alt-text (512 characters or fewer for Misskey compatibility or even 200 characters or fewer) that'd be the only description that I'd publish right away
There would be no excessively long alt-text (at least not right away). There would be no tens of thousands of characters of long description in the post (at least not right away) although I couldn't guarantee that the post won't exceed 500 characters.
At the same time, this would give me "notes" that I could source if someone asked me to describe some detail. And if some Mastodon alt-text activist came and complained that my description is lacking all over, I could replace the short alt-text with the already existing long alt-text and add the long description to the post text right away.
Granted, my workload would increase some more. Most of it might end up for nothing most of the time. And nobody would get text transcripts unless they'd ask for them because I couldn't possibly fit them all into just a few hundred characters.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Today's show - Long Go Like Bongo
Extra long show as don't have work so chilling, playing nice records :)
Shabaka End Of Innocence
Shabaka - As the Planets and the Stars Collapse
Shabaka Insecurities
Speakers Corner Quartet Dreaded!
Speakers Corner Quartet Geronimo Blues
Gasslamp Killer Breakthrough Intro
Gasslamp Killer Veins
Gasslamp Killer Holy Mt. Washington
Spoonie Gee Love Rap
The Weather
Sarathy Korwar On A Perfect Day
Sarathy Korwar We Take Things For Granted
Doktor Lond Meets Funky Karlsen Dubs On Me
Horace Andy Midnight Scorcher
Distal Not Cool
Subset The Astrogater
The Dubnihilist October Dawn
Hania Rani 24:03
SCQ, AHC, AMS Musical Medicine
Roger Robinson A Letter To Brixton
Liotia HDYK
Nightmares On Wax Sweeter Still
Quasimoto Jazz Cats
Quasimoto 24/7
inpc - ICE
Prepared Modul Eins
Prepared Modul Zwei
Steph Kailou Today (TAW Dub)
Frequency Television
Orbital Deeper
Adrian Sherwood Spaghetti Best Western
Nisennenmondai - #4
Ohm Unit Refracted
Fabienne Prophecy
On the one hand, I feel a great pressure to describe and explain everything in advance. That way, nobody would ever have to ask me to describe a detail or explain something. And nobody, not even the most die-hard Mastodon alt-text activists, could say that I'm careless and that I only do the very bare minimum or not even that. There are people out there who are eager to block everyone who doesn't describe their images enough or lecture them or attack them for being lazy.
The last time I've described an image for Hubzilla, I refused to write detailed descriptions for the images within that image. That would have escalated and cost me weeks to describe them all because I'd also have had to describe dozens of images within these images and even more images within these images. Mind you, someone who travels to the place I've described couldn't actually see what I'd have described because the images in my image themselves have a limited resolution. But I genuinely felt bad for not describing these images.
Besides, if I only described my original images once, namely in the alt-text, and then briefly and concisely, and if someone came and asked me to describe certain elements at greater detail, I couldn't always do that. Sometimes I couldn't go back to the place shown in the image and take a closer look and write a more detailed description because that place simply doesn't exist anymore, or it has been modified, and it doesn't look like the image anymore. The details that I'd have to take a closer look at are gone.
On the other hand, my experience is also that posting more than 500 characters at once reduces my reach on Mastodon tremendously. I think I must have over 700 or 800 followers, but my reach on Mastodon is similar to that of someone with not even a dozen followers. And I don't think that's because what I post is so uninteresting or because of my rather controversial thoughts about the Fediverse, accessibility in the Fediverse, image descriptions etc.
Basically, I can't possibly post images without risking being sanctioned by anyone.
I've briefly considered putting my long descriptions into separate HTML documents and linking to them. In theory, that would reduce the length of my image posts greatly. However, this is entirely untested. I don't know if it'd work at all, i.e. open the HTML document in someone's browser rather than downloading it to their device as a file. I don't know either if a plain HTML document with no style sheet would be accessible to screen reader users.
What I do know, though, is that Mastodon hates external links with a flaming passion. That's also because the vast majority of Mastodon users is always on phones, using dedicated Mastodon apps. They hate their browser popping open when they tap a link all the same. Also, they tend to distrust external links because the linked documents or pages may not be sufficiently accessible.
Everything would be a whole lot easier if there were Fediverse-wide standards for image descriptions that take the requirements of blind or visually-impaired people into consideration as well as Mastodon's unique culture. If these standards were known to everyone both on Mastodon and in the non-Mastodon Fediverse. If everyone from blind or visually-impaired users to neurodivergent users to fully sighted alt-text activists agreed upon these standards all the same. And if these standards covered extreme edge-cases like mine as well. If there was a generally agreed-upon consensus on a whole lot of questions like:
- Is it okay to have to ask for detailed descriptions of certain details in an image that don't matter within the context of the post
Or do they have to be described right away if there's a chance that someone might be curious about them What if nothing specific in the image matters more within the context than everything else - Is it okay to have to ask for explanations if you don't understand the topic of an image
Or do images about very obscure niche topics have to come with enough explanations for everyone to understand them right away (not counting technical or jargon terms which always have to be either avoided or explained) - So there's the rule that all text within an image must be transcribed verbatim. How far does this rule go
Let's suppose I have a few dozen individual bits of text within an image. Most or all of them are so small that they're unreadable. Some are so tiny that they're actually invisible at the image's resolution. Still, technically speaking, they're there. And: I can read them. Instead of reading them in the image, I can read them at the source. So I can transcribe them all.
What is the rule then
Do I have to transcribe them although they're unreadable because the rule says all text has to be transcribed
Do I have to transcribe them although they're unreadable because not doing so and writing that they're unreadable with no transcript is or may be considered lazy
Do I have to transcribe them because they're unreadable, and even fully sighted people need a transcript to know what's written there
Mustn't I transcribe them because they don't show themselves as text in the image at the image's resolution (if they actually don't)
Mustn't I transcribe them because I must only describe what's visible in the image at the image's resolution to the naked eye
Do I have to transcribe them in my special edge-case in spite of the two above lines because this might be my last and only chance to transcribe them, for they may be gone tomorrow, and I would no longer be able to transcribe them if someone asked for a transcript Or must I remember to keep personal transcripts of all the texts I come across in my images, just in case someone asks for a transcript of a bit of text that no longer exists - Must all text transcripts always be in the alt-text as opposed to an extra long image description in the post Even if I have 20+ individual text transcripts to squeeze into Mastodon's limit of 1,500 characters of Misskey's limit of 512 characters
Or is it okay to- transcribe them in a separate long description in the post text
- not put these transcripts into the alt-text
- mention in the alt-text that there is a long image description in the post, that all the texts in the image are transcribed there, and how exactly to find that long image description
- If any of the above requires a separate long image description because the image description won't fit within the alt-text character limits, is it preferred for the long description to be in a linked document that will open in the browser (given one has the means to write and host such a document, and users on Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte do have these means)
Or must the long description be where the image is at all costs Must it be in the post itself for the convenience of app users even if it inflates the post to a hyper-massive length to the inconvenience of Mastodon users
Worse yet: I've recently found out that none of the things above must be discussed on Mastodon. Ever. You must not discuss that stuff. You must do it. But you must do it right off the bat. For whichever individual definition of "right".
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
New long and stylish women's dress model Image of life magazine
Various and beautiful models of women's evening dresses - stylish evening dresses Various and beautiful models of formal dresses - stylish formal dresses Various and beautiful models of formal dresses - stylish formal dresses Various and be
Halifax woman calling out NSH after 7-year wait for MRI appointment
A Halifax woman says enough is enough when it comes to long waittimes in the healthcare system. Jessica Leslie just got a call for her MRI appointment seven years after her specialist sent in a requisition.
LoGeR 3D reconstruction from extremely long videos (DeepMind, UC Berkeley)
Add your location to a Google MapTrump says Iran's new leader won't 'last long' without US approval
NEWYou can now listen to US News Hub articles! President Donald Trump said Sunday that Irans new leader is "not going to last long" without U.S. approval as Operation Epic Fury continues into its second week."Hes going to have...
Iran's next supreme leader won't 'last long' without my approval, Trump says
As the Iranians get closer to naming their next supreme leader, President Donald Trump said Sunday the new leader "is not going to last long" if the Iranians don't get his approval first."Hes going to have to get approval from...
The problem with the Mastodon client API is still that it's a Mastodon API. As in, geared towards only one Fediverse server application. In fact, as in, geared towards a very lack-lustre server application that lacks features which have been present in many other places in the Fediverse for years.This means that you can use a whole lot of microblogging server applications with Mastodon clients. You can even use Friendica with some Mastodon clients. But then you're limited to the features which Mastodon has as well because the Mastodon client API doesn't support any features that Mastodon doesn't have. Why should it, after all
At the end of the day, the Mastodon client API is designed and maintained by the Mastodon developers. It's them who decide what it can do and what it can't do. For one, they won't waste their time adding features to it that Mastodon itself doesn't have. Besides, if they did, they'd support Mastodon's direct competition and strengthen their advantages over Mastodon when they could throw rocks into their paths instead like they've always done.
This, by the way, is also one reason why both the developers of Hubzilla and the developer of (streams) and Forte refuse to implement the Mastodon client API. It simply wouldn't cover at least 90% of the features of these server applications, including features which you'll need all the time, everyday. That, and they don't want their software to end up at the mercy of Mastodon's developers and Mastodon's product politics by making it depend on Mastodon's technology. They'd rather have no native mobile app at all (and currently they do).
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Men's Basketball Faces Long Beach State On Senior Night With Big West Title In Play

 Story Links
 
 HONOLULU The University of Hawai'i men's basketball team plays its final ever Big West regular-season game with a championship on the line when it hosts Long Beach State on Saturday Night. Tip-off is 7 pm...
Hashtags should always be at the very bottom of the post in one line that contains nothing else. That way, at least some Mastodon clients can hide the whole line of hashtags and show the hashtags elsewhere. Also, Mastodon's own Web frontend generates actual tags from a hashtag-only bottom line.Both is neither possible with hashtags elsewhere in the post nor when there's something else than hashtags in the last line.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Long Island college hockey prodigy shattering records at Quinnipiac
Long Island college hockey prodigy Ethan Wyttenbach of Quinnipiac, which is ranked No. 7 in the country, continues stunning the sports world with a nation-leading 57 points in his first season, which just shattered the teams freshman scoring record...
Privacy Commissioner probe finds Loblaw took too long to delete PC Optimum accounts
GATINEAU An investigation by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has found that Loblaw took too long to address requests from customers who wanted to delete their PC Optimum accounts. The office on Thursday said Loblaw had the mechanism...
The great AP community themselves are way more likely to whip up a Mastodon-only share button than a generic Fediverse share button, and they have done so in the past several times AFAIK.The thinking behind this has always been one of these:
- Fediverse = Mastodon. The Fediverse only consists of Mastodon.
- The Fediverse is more than Mastodon, but only barely. It isn't worth supporting all those teensy-tiny side-projects.
- The Fediverse is more than Mastodon, but it's easier to only support the biggest of all projects than to support all projects.
- People are more likely to be familiar with "Mastodon" than with "Fediverse", both on Mastodon and outside the Fediverse. Nobody would understand a "Fediverse" share button.
Oh, and Mastodon hasn't failed being more open. Mastodon has decided to not be more open. It's a fully intentional design decision and part of Mastodon's scheme to either make the rest of the Fediverse look bad or exclude it from "the Fediverse".
# # # # # # # # # #
So long, Rev. Jackson. Details on Fridays homecoming service
Today, let us all remember, as the Rev. Jesse Jackson famously said, to Keep Hope Alive.A homecoming service to honor Jackson, the civil rights icon and two-time presidential candidate who died on Feb. 17, will feature three former presidents...
Coal India surges 3.5% as derivative data signals strong long build-up amid power demand fears
Shares of Coal India Ltd were trading at 450.50 on the NSE at around noon on March 5, 2026, Thursday, up 15.35 or 3.53 per cent from the previous close of 435.15. The stock opened at 440.15, touched an intraday...
Dutch speed skaters Jenning de Boo, Femke Kok dominate Day 1 of long track worlds
Dutch sprinters lit up the opening day of the ISU speed skating world championships on Thursday, as Jenning de Boo and Femke Kok swept the men's and women's 500 metres and 1,000 distances to underline the host nation's dominance in Heerenveen, Netherlands.
dpose plainte pour diffamation contre un groupe d'extrme droite qui a agress verbalement et tent d'intimider une des quipes mobiles de le 5 dcembre 2025, sur le Nord littoral prs de .
Spider-Man: Long Way Home Jonathan Hickman & Adam Kubert Unite Spider-Man, Punisher and Hulk
This June, legendary creators Jonathan Hickman and Adam Kubert team up to tell the grittiest Spider-Man comic story of the modern age, co-starring Punisher and Hulk, in SPIDER-MAN: LONG WAY HOME.
Comic fans...
-man way ome
How long will the Iran war last Experts weigh in on the debate
A plume of smoke rises after a strike on the Iranian capital Tehran, on March 3, 2026.Atta Kenare Afp Getty ImagesSince the U.S. and Israel launched surprise strikes on Iran last weekend, Washington has been keen to stress...
Bullish sign: Long-term holders' Bitcoins sell off at a profit after 11 months
ad1 n On-chain data shows that long-term holders are making a "profit" from the sale of their units for the first time in nearly a year. In the past, revivals of this form of profitability among long-term holders have occurred before m
Spaceflight can cause long-term structural changes in the human brain
ad1 We know that being in space affects different parts of our body, from the brain to the bones But scientists still do not know the exact details of this change. In a new study, scientists investigated how long-term space missions and
See Short Documentary About Making Of SOCIAL DISTORTION's Long-Awaited Eighth Album, 'Born To Kill'
My
That's the trouble: The only way to actually speak with screen reader users is to find them, single them out and mention them personally. And even then they will have to want to discuss these matters with you.This is also because next to everyone in the Fediverse who isn't sighted is on Mastodon and only on Mastodon. And Mastodon has no support for groups whatsoever. Discussing things would be much easier if Mastodon had had full-blown group support, either simply compatible with existing Fediverse group solutions or with its own solution that's fully compatible with what else supports groups, already before Musk announced he'd take over Twitter. Then Mastodon's culture would include groups rather than being completely oblivious of groups.
What I know, though, is that blind and visually-impaired Mastodon users are happy to have some alt-texts. On the commercial social platforms, they got nothing. So they generally don't have sky-high demands. In fact, unless it's a matter of life and death, they don't really care how accurate a description is because they can't verify the accuracy anyway. Also, some like a bit of whimsy with their alt-texts.
But I'm rather safe than sorry. Besides, it isn't the blind or visually-impaired people who police alt-texts and image descriptions. Mastodon's alt-text police are fully sighted. And it's them who sanction you and who decide whether you're allowed to have any reach in the Fediverse, based on how you describe your images.
However, due to Mastodon's limitations, the alt-text police don't talk to each other either, nor do they ever talk to anyone who isn't sighted. So everyone enforces different quality standards while believing their standards are the official gold standards.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # The alt-text for the above image post CW: long (over 1,700 characters) View article View summary
If, for reasons that are beyond my control, the image in the post above should not have an alt-text, here is the actual alt-text from the original.
Digital shaded rendering of the main building of the Universal Campus, a downloadable island location for 3-D virtual worlds based on OpenSimulator. The camera position is about three metres or ten feet above the ground. The camera is tilted slightly upward and rotated slightly to the left from the building's longitudinal axis. The futuristic building is over 200 metres long, stretching far into the distance, and its front is about 50 metres wide. Its structure is mostly textured to resemble brushed stainless steel, and almost everything in-between is grey tinted glass. The main entrance of the building in the middle of the front has two pairs of glass doors. They are surrounded by a massive complex geometrical structure, very roughly reminiscent of a vintage video game spacecraft with the front facing upward. Four huge cylindrical pillars carry the roof end, the outer two of which extend beyond it. All are tilted away from the landing area in front of the building and at the same time outward to the sides. The sides of the building are slightly tilted themselves. In the distance, a large geodesic dome rises from the building. There is a large circular area in front of the main entrance as well as several wide paths. They have light concrete textures, and they are lined with low walls with almost white concrete textures. Furthermore, various shrubs and trees decorate the scenery. A more detailed description including explanations and text transcripts can be found in the post.
# # # # # # Quote-post of an actual image post of mine, complete with image alt-text and a long image description in the post itself CW: long (over 64,000 characters), quote-post, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
If you really believe I never describe any of my images, here's a counter-proof: my last post with an actual image here on this Hubzilla channel before I moved my image-posting to (streams). It's from May 16th, 2024. By the way, the image should be embedded within the post, right above the "Image description" headline.
The image has an alt-text of exactly 1,500 characters with as detailed an image description as I could possibly fit into it, and in addition, it has a long image description in the post text itself that measures over 60,000 characters. It has to be the longest description for a single image in the history of the Fediverse. It took me two whole days, morning to evening, to research for and write this image description, and I wrote the alt-text in the morning of the following day. All without using any AI.
Fair warning: The image description is outdated in the ways that dimensions and colours are described, and parts of the explanations may be factually wrong. Besides, I didn't try hard enough to either avoid or explain technical and jargon terms. But I didn't know better back then, and I don't go around and edit all my image descriptions whenever I learn something new.
I could quote-post more image posts with alt-texts and either explanations or full descriptions in the post if this one post doesn't convince you. But this is just about my only image post that has nothing potentially triggering in the image. All the others have potentially triggering eye contact which would end up on older Mastodon versions and probably in many Mastodon apps in plain sight.
RE:
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Your own posts aren't any better anyway CW: long (over 1,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta, hashtag meta View article View summary
On the other hand, when I look at your personal timeline, it's obvious that you've never really arrived on Mastodon. You break all kinds of rules. You break alt-text and image-describing rules, and you break Mastodon's cultural rules.
You write alt-texts in multiple paragraphs. You almost never use CWs, not for posts over 500 characters, not for US or Canadian politics, not for wars, never. You rarely use hashtags, and when you do, you sometimes put them in-line instead of all into the bottom line. In-line hashtags are inconvenient for screen reader users.
You boost image posts without checking whether the images have alt-texts, much less whether the alt-texts are accurate, sufficiently detailed and in line with the existing alt-text and image description rules. You boost posts about potentially disturbing topics that have no CWs.
So don't come lecturing me if your own doings are likely to get you silently muted and blocked by other Mastodon users left and right.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # I've described all my images since I've learned about alt-texts, and I put more effort and knowledge into them than anyone on Mastodon CW: long (almost 8,700 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, character limit meta Artikel ansehen Zusammenfassung ansehen
Now listen here.
Ever since I've learned about alt-texts and image descriptions, I've described all my images. And unlike most Mastodon users, I've improved my image-describing further and further.
Whenever I learned something new about image descriptions, be it a rule, a guideline, a good practice or a Mastodon preference, I used this new knowledge in new image descriptions and declared all my previous image descriptions obsolete. And I've learned a lot over the years.
I've learned from Mastodon that if explanations are necessary to understand an image, they must be delivered immediately with the image post. Ever since, I've explained everything in my images that needs explaining. And since all my image posts are about extremely obscure niche topics, they need a whole lot of explanations.
I've learned from a physically disabled Mastodon user that not everyone can access alt-texts. She, for example, can't. Thus, explanations in the alt-text are lost to her. I've learned from her that explanations go into the post text. I've put all my explanations into the post text ever since.
I've learned from Mastodon that Mastodon tends to love long, detailed image descriptions. Considering how obscure the contents of my original images are and how nobody knows what anything in them looks like if they don't see it, I came to the conclusion that someone somewhere out there might need full, detailed descriptions. I've given my original images full, detailed descriptions ever since.
I've learned from various sources that alt-text must only describe what's important within the context of a post. But judging from my observations of Mastodon, its culture and its love for long alt-texts override this rule. If someone wants to know about all the small details in your images, the context doesn't matter. Thus, how detailed my image descriptions are depends on whether or not I have to expect someone being curious about the details.
I've learned by experimentation that Mastodon truncates long external alt-texts from outside at the 1,500-character mark. Also, Hubzilla (where I am) can only display so many characters of alt-text, and alt-text cannot be scrolled. Since the audience of my alt-texts is pretty much exclusively on Mastodon, I've put the full, long, detailed image descriptions into the post text.
I've learned from a blog post that alt-texts must never contain line breaks. Line breaks in alt-texts have a nasty side-effect for screen reader users: After each line break, screen readers assume that they're reading a new alt-text for a new image. And they start whatever they consider an individual image alt-text with something like, "Graphic." Thus, I write all my alt-texts as one single paragraph.
I've learned from another blog post, as well as personal experience with various Fediverse server applications, that alt-texts must never contain the double quotes commonly found on keyboards. Different frontends may misbehave in different ways, some fail very ungracefully. Thus, I no longer use these quotes in my alt-texts.
I've learned from Mastodon that even if there is an image description in the post text, there must always be an accurate and sufficiently detailed image description in the alt-text regardless. Otherwise you risk being sanctioned. I have described all my original images twice ever since: with a long and fully detailed description in the post text and a shorter description in the alt-text.
I've learned from blog posts and websites about alt-texts that text in images must be transcribed verbatim. However, nowhere that I've seen this rule written down, I've seen it mention text that's unreadable in the image while the author knows what's written there. My conclusion is that there is no exception for these texts. I tend to have many such texts. Thus, I transcribe all bits and pieces of text within the borders of my images if I have a way to read them. And I usually have.
I've learned from other blog posts about alt-texts that colours must not only be mentioned in image descriptions, but they must also be described. After all, blind people cannot be expected to know what e.g. Burgundy red is. Also, dimensions must be given not simply in absolute measures, but relatively to what else is in the image or to something that everyone is familiar with, namely the human body. Unfortunately, I've learned that so recently that I only have one original image post in which I make use of these techniques hence, all my older original image posts count as obsolete.
I've learned from yet elsewhere that races must not be mentioned, and genders must not be assumed. I abide by both when describing meme images. My original images, on the other hand, never contain actual human beings. Whenever I show an avatar, it's always one of my avatars whose gender I have personally defined, and these avatars can't really emulate real-life human phenotypes.
Most of the above has never been taken into consideration by anyone on Mastodon. I'm literally the only one in the Fediverse who takes describing images to such levels.
But I go beyond alt-texts and image descriptions.
I've learned from Mastodon that if there's something, anything in a post of yours that might disturb anyone in some way, the post requires a Mastodon-style content warning that mentions in which way the post is disturbing. Here on Hubzilla, that's a summary. It's the same thing, and Hubzilla had summaries before Mastodon had CWs.
From observing both Mastodon and the Web outside the Fediverse, I've compiled a list of potentially triggering topics. Even excluding national/state/provincial/regional politics, I've gathered 111 of these so far. I do my best to include each one whenever necessary. On top of that, I add CWs for many things I post about because I guess I go onto people's nerves when I post about them (the Fediverse, alt-text, image descriptions, hashtags, character limits, quote-posts, actual quote-posting etc.).
However, Hubzilla is not a Twitter wannabe. It's more like Facebook or blogging software. It only offers a summary (Mastodon: CW) field for posts and DMs, but not for comments (it has two different editors for when you reply and when you don't). I could try to add a summary (Mastodon: CW) using a pair of BBcode tags, and I've done so here, but I know from personal experience that the summary tags do not translate to a Mastodon CW in comments. I'd add an individual CW to each one of my comments, but Mastodon users will neither get an actual CW nor understand that I've tried.
So I double almost all my CW'd topics up with an appropriate set of hashtags. This is in line with the culture where I am: Here on Hubzilla and in its whole software family, we don't force poster-side CWs upon each other. Instead, we have them automatically generated for ourselves, reader-side, tailored to our individual needs. But this requires keywords to trigger the automated hiding of content behind CWs.
Also, I know just what may disturb people. The best example is eye contact. You think that eye contact can only be triggering in full-face portraits of a person looking directly at the viewer Wrong! It's triggering if there's at least one eye in the image. I've been told that some people in the autistic spectrum can detect an eye in an image if it's only a tiny fraction of a pixel. I have to expect this to extend to other potentially triggering things as well.
Thus, if it's potentially triggering and somewhere within the borders of one of my images, even if it's hardly discernible or completely invisible to the neurotypical, I still consider the whole image potentially triggering, and I treat the image and the whole post as such.
In fact, I've stopped posting potentially triggering images here on Hubzilla altogether. That's because Hubzilla has no way of making Mastodon blank an image out. And not long ago, Mastodon's CWs only hid the post text, but not the images belonging to a post. I can't rule out that certain Mastodon apps still behave this way. So I can't even use CWs to hide a triggering image. This is why I only ever post images on (streams) now: (streams) makes Mastodon blank images out when a post contains one or two certain hashtags.
Again, nobody on Mastodon goes even only nearly that far.
Please tell me in which ways exactly this is still insufficient.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
M.
, , , , route 400... , . . , - GET POST. -
M.
, , , , route 400... , . . , - GET POST. -
How long do electric vehicle batteries actually last : US News Hub MISRYOUM
A sign offers parking and charging facilities for electric cars at a retail park in Berlin in 2023. Evidence from the oldest generation of electric vehicles suggests their batteries are lasting longer than was expected in the early days...
Near the former RFK Stadium is one big, dirty snowball. How long will it take to melt it
For three weeks, the Districts snow removal crews have been trucking most of D.C.s excess snow and ice to one of the former RFK Stadium parking lots. For three weeks, the Districts snow removal crews have been trucking most of...
Last updated: 2026-03-13
All text and images © eLoc8.is-fabulous.com