• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Then it would still be not nice (ie, patronizing & wrong) for the reasons stated in the rest of the message.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        The disabled disagree with you.

        People overthink this: just linking the web as designed is not that hard & it doesn’t break everything like accessibility/usability, digging for context, etc.

        Why links?

        Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

        • usability
          • we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
          • text search is unavailable
          • the system can’t
            • reflow text to varied screen sizes
            • vary presentation (size, contrast)
            • vary modality (audio, braille)
        • accessibility
          • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
          • some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
          • users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
          • systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
        • web connectivity
          • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
          • we can’t explore wider context of the original message
        • authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
        • searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
        • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
          • image breaks
          • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

        Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.

        • Wren@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I can agree everyone should get to enjoy equal access to the web and still believe censoring user names is nice. There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.

          Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?

          How about a transcript for the image? That way user names could stay blocked.

          • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?

            Yes: that would certainly reveal the names.

            There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.

            Easy: don’t harass. There are better controls on harassment by others than breaking accessibility & all the other considerations (usability, web connectivity, authenticity, searchability, fault tolerance) like reporting abuses.

            Transcripts still break web connectivity (to explore context) & authenticity.

            Your approach requests OP conduct/sustain definite harm[1] to speculatively prevent indefinite harm someone else won’t necessarily perform. How is requesting definite harm to an uninvolved party nice or right?

            Everyone has moral agency to do the right thing here, and respecting that would be just.


            1. impairing access ↩︎

            • Wren@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              If your goal is accessibility, you’re taking quite a long walk to get there.