💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 002888.gmi captured on 2020-10-31 at 14:50:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Andrew Singleton singletona082 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 15:47:52 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oooooooh. Look guys, I'm sorry for not keeping up with thediscussions. However the technical side, in spite of best efforts,kinda flies over my head. So the fact gemini clients haveuser-definable EVERYTHING is honestly a huge win in my book. I preferdark background/light text. Other people with low vision like bluebackground with white text (personally I don't get it, but eh.) Otherslike a beige/cream background with dark text.
The 'let the end user define what page elements present as' ishonestly a step forward, especially with the idea of gemini being amiddlepoint between gopher and full blown html.
However I was viewing through a traditional browser, so I'm unsure howto square that problem.
On 10/21/20, James Tomasino <tomasino at lavabit.com> wrote:
On 10/21/20 2:16 PM, Leo wrote:
If we are disregarding user agents being able to pick colours as a valid
thing to do, should we also add styling to the Gemini document format so
content producers can make sure their text is displayed correctly and is
accessible?
It's the lack of styling in the gemini document format working in our favor.
On http browsers pass the buck for styling saying it's the content author's
responsibility. In gemini we can do away with that nonsense and build
clients better. Accessible clients are first-class citizens.