Y’all. I just launched v1.5 of my macOS color contrast checker, Ratio. A couple of bugs squashed and it’s ready for your accessibility ventures in design and development.
https://ratioapp.markwyner.com
#Ratio #W3C #Accessibility #A11y #ColorContrast #macOS #App #Software #Design #FrontEnd #Development
Y’all. I just launched v1.5 of my macOS color contrast checker, Ratio. A couple of bugs squashed and it’s ready for your accessibility ventures in design and development.
https://ratioapp.markwyner.com
#Ratio #W3C #Accessibility #A11y #ColorContrast #macOS #App #Software #Design #FrontEnd #Development
(1/3)
@laurenshof
> W3C membership structure concentrates formal power ... while the implementers who could counterbalance that power have largely opted out of the process
My impression is that like a lot of things, this is caused by a combo of;
* lack of time and energy among projects devs, most of whom still work as volunteers
* the tense atmosphere that persists in many dev collaboration spaces, like SocialHub (not pointing the bone, I'm no saint, and I recognise I've contributed to this)
(2/3)
My hope is that the chartering of a formal W3C Working Group to update ActivityPub will motivate devs to participate more in standards work. The promise of making concrete changes to the protocol specs might make it feel like less of a Boulder of Sisyphus. Plus, the prospect of working in a formally facilitated process, with fewer rubberneckers (like me), might mitigate any anxiety about discussions getting unpleasant.
Who gets to define the next #ActivityPub #W3C standard?
> the Working Group requires participants to either be a paid W3C member or to be an Invited Expert. There are only two organisations that are active in the fediverse that are a paid member of the W3C: Meta and the Social Web Foundation. With the Social Web Foundation also receiving funding from Meta [...]
(Via archive.org because connectedplaces didn't respond to lynx over Tor.)
Who gets to define the next #ActivityPub #W3C standard?
> the Working Group requires participants to either be a paid W3C member or to be an Invited Expert. There are only two organisations that are active in the fediverse that are a paid member of the W3C: Meta and the Social Web Foundation. With the Social Web Foundation also receiving funding from Meta [...]
(Via archive.org because connectedplaces didn't respond to lynx over Tor.)
ActivityPub, the protocol that powers much of the fediverse and allows the various fediverse platforms and servers to talk to each other, has become an official W3C standard 8 years ago!
https://www.w3.org/news/2018/activitypub-is-now-a-w3c-recommendation/
#fediverse #activitypub #standards #OpenWeb #W3C #anniversary #OTD #OnThisDay
ActivityPub, the protocol that powers much of the fediverse and allows the various fediverse platforms and servers to talk to each other, has become an official W3C standard 8 years ago!
https://www.w3.org/news/2018/activitypub-is-now-a-w3c-recommendation/
#fediverse #activitypub #standards #OpenWeb #W3C #anniversary #OTD #OnThisDay
https://connectedplaces.online/reports/fediverse-report-148-on-protocol-governance/
On the complexities of protocol governance.
>There are only two organisations that are active in the fediverse that are a paid member of the W3C: Meta and the Social Web Foundation.
>With the Social Web Foundation also receiving funding from Meta, the company that built Threads now has more institutional standing in ActivityPub governance than any of the organisations actually building open fediverse software.
>Mastodon gGmbH, Framasoft, and others are not W3C members and cannot participate in the Working Group unless they are invited.
#CHATONS #fediverse #fedivers #ActivityPub #w3c #Mastodon #Peertube #Lemmy #mBin #Piefed #NodeBB #Iceshrimp #Pixelfed #Loops
