mastodon.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Generic Mastodon server for anyone to use.

Server stats:

8.1K
active users

#w3c

4 posts4 participants0 posts today

📘 Just published: “Designing with Abstractions: CSS and the Case of Masonry Layouts”

This (academic) article explores CSS as both a technical system and a design object. It examines how this is shaped through negotiation between conceptual models, implementation constraints, and interface considerations, focusing on the Masonry layout debates.

Appreciation to those participating in CSS WG debates and making this work visible.

journal.dampress.org/issues/de

journal.dampress.orgDesign Arts Medias | Designing with Abstractions: CSS and the Case of Masonry LayoutsLa Revue Design Arts Medias du laboratoire ACTE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne
#CSS#CSSWG#w3c

Ugh, now I have to decide if the @w3c is correct in it's standard that Lab A/B is defined as -125 to +125, or if implementations in Chrome and Firefox are correct that lab values go from -128 to +128.

So, 100% is still 125, but really in the model behind the scenes 100% is 128.

Grreeeaaat.

#w3c#html#color

Bluesky, Britain, Age-Verification, Age-Attestation, and Railway Trains | …what child-protection measures British Civil Society *ought* to be demanding

A friend/peer asked me “What are you going to do about Bluesky’s announcement of Age Verification?” as recently described in the Verge — and this is my response:

At the moment I am going with “point and laugh, loudly” because if you pick a side then various self-righteous twerps will either chide you for not protecting children, or they will chide you for not being sympathetic to Bluesky being at the mercy of draconian law (“but what can we do, mustn’t grumble, etc etc…”)

I feel that we should take a different approach.

I believe that [British Civil Society] severely mishandled the online safety act, in many respects caving to the child protection and age verification lobbies in a manner which I presume was meant to keep us with a seat at the table but which has in the process sold-out the privacy of the internet user. 

What we should have been doing on this matter is fighting a similar fight to that which we saw during COVID – demanding (once we worked out / it was announced that it was possible) that platforms solve the problem in a privacy-preserving manner, rather than each and every nation-state being free to (in that case) squirt its own infected-person-tracking code into each and every Android and iOS device in the world

With respect to age verification, we should have led with three observations: 

  1. that the current system of age verification for buying (e.g.) booze in shops works because vendors are obligated to accept reasonable credentials being presented to them (flashing your driver’s licence, etc) 
  2. that it is entirely possible to replicate this architecture in a privacy preserving manner with digital credentials as [some kind of] “bearer” tokens, [for trivial example] a HTTP header which contains a token saying “the user of this web browser is over 18 but not over 40, do with this information what you will”
  3. that the architectural choice to burden and obligate {vendors, platforms, social media, other age-dependent sites} with engaging third party AV service providers, both (a) proliferates user data unnecessarily (see above) plus (b) worsens the user experience by obligating the user to jump through hoops in order to buy something (different providers for different vendors) — when in fact they should just have a single credential which they can flash at the vendor web server.

It’s interesting to see that both Google and the W3C are starting to stick their nose into the latter [kinds of] solutions, so Britain – by “leading the way” – may have backed itself into a corner from which it will not readily emerge. Much like the railways we will lay down this [legal and regulatory infrastructure] early and come to regret it later.

[Basically: much like what happened to the original GCHQ/UK-Homebrew COVID-tracing app, but where the cost is smeared over everyone rather than coming exclusively from NHS coffers.]

So that’s why I’m going to “point and laugh” – because it’s not polite to criticise Bluesky for fulfilling its obligations under British law, however they will serve as a tragic example re: how precipitously user engagement will drop off under the “vendor-initiated” age verification regime, because we are all following Baroness Kidron’s illiberal march towards a safer world for our children, informed by the rent-seeking instincts of the age verification industry – as I first documented in 2016

Instead we need a world of “user-initiated” bearer-type tokens to fulfil age-verification obligations [- which themselves, in turn, should be minimised -] and we will also need civil society like ourselves to hold our noses re: the likely fact that this would (short term) put incrementally more information and power into the hands of Apple and Google – although in the ideal circumstance users should be enabled to purchase “age-attestation” services from whomever they like.

BlueskyWorking with the UK Government to Protect Children Online - BlueskyPart of Bluesky’s mission to create a more open and decentralized social web is helping users feel safe and in control of their experience. We always try to balance safety with privacy, and free expression with civility.

Bit stuck on this #lcms2 #LittleCMS2 profile conversion.

Here's the thing, I should be able to transform an xyz d65 color into an sRGB d65 color using relative calorimetric intent as the #w3c CSS Color Module 4 says.

But I keep getting different results for some of the inputs. Some of them come out the same though.

Clipping? Anyone done this before?