3 ms·

There is also an allure of having a client that will never run some weird god-know-what-doing javascript code. Of course you can just disable javascript in you

There is also an allure of having a client that will never run some weird god-know-what-doing javascript code. Of course you can just disable javascript in your HTTP browser. But as the author states, it's easier to write a completely new client than to disable all the bloat in e.g. firefox.

aronpye 6y ago
Agreed, but like I’ve said elsewhere the effort would be better spent modifying an existing browser to be lightweight. That would gain more widespread adoption than a whole new client-server protocol. You’d also gain the benefit of better interoperability with screen readers and such like.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Nobody involved in Gemini wants "widespread adoption", because that inevitably means big commercial organisations coming into the space where right now they're having a lovely time building a community. Screen readers handle Gemini just fine - one of the clients I've tried outputs text and buttons in a GTK window, another literally just outputs text into a terminal and takes command line input, if a screenreader couldn't handle that I'd be horrified. The format is paragraph-based, there's very little styling, no guessing at what the main content on a page is.
- peteyboy 6y ago
  So you say the "effort". There are 50-some line gemini clients, and more than a few people have coded graphical clients in a few days by themselves. Same with servers. Is modifying firefox or palemoon really going to be a "better spent" effort? I think screen readers can read text pretty well, also, since you've declared that to be a goal for some reason.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  Unfortunately, having worked on both Chromium and Firefox, I can inform you that modifying an existing browser to be lightweight is an unfeasible project. It's a waste of time compared to just making something new. That doesn't mean that normal browsers couldn't also get gopher support for those not interested in a lightweight browser.

aronpye 6y ago

Agreed, but like I’ve said elsewhere the effort would be better spent modifying an existing browser to be lightweight. That would gain more widespread adoption than a whole new client-server protocol. You’d also gain the benefit of better interoperability with screen readers and such like.

vertex-four 6y ago
Nobody involved in Gemini wants "widespread adoption", because that inevitably means big commercial organisations coming into the space where right now they're having a lovely time building a community. Screen readers handle Gemini just fine - one of the clients I've tried outputs text and buttons in a GTK window, another literally just outputs text into a terminal and takes command line input, if a screenreader couldn't handle that I'd be horrified. The format is paragraph-based, there's very little styling, no guessing at what the main content on a page is.
peteyboy 6y ago
So you say the "effort". There are 50-some line gemini clients, and more than a few people have coded graphical clients in a few days by themselves. Same with servers. Is modifying firefox or palemoon really going to be a "better spent" effort? I think screen readers can read text pretty well, also, since you've declared that to be a goal for some reason.
arghwhat 6y ago
Unfortunately, having worked on both Chromium and Firefox, I can inform you that modifying an existing browser to be lightweight is an unfeasible project. It's a waste of time compared to just making something new. That doesn't mean that normal browsers couldn't also get gopher support for those not interested in a lightweight browser.