Notices by Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social), page 6

@rakoo @benpate Or @Vivaldi 👍

@laurenshof 👀 - very cool 👍

Shit.

@trwnh option C I was more tentative on and while it does not solve everything I think it does improve on B. More later.

@trwnh Then I think you misread both. Or I may need to add more clarity— in either case: More next week when back from travel.

@deadsuperhero Amen.

This from @sean is EXACTLY the type of conversation I hoped to spark and everywhere he suggests addition fixes I was unaware of I love them all.

https://social.wedistribute.org/objects/cf1e6d28-20bb-41b9-8677-e085ec15a6d0

@trwnh Reread my article - and the bigger article it links to that explains how it’s far better Ux.

@deadsuperhero is it bad that I like your version better than my own article part 2?

(But too late to just out and out delete mine and just redirect it your way: but I WILL do an edit when back from travel and update a link to it in my article! )

https://indieweb.social/@tchambers/114739709799083596

@deadsuperhero This is why we are virtual friends.

@deadsuperhero And happy to answer any questions. But am traveling with intermittent access to social.

@trwnh Actually:

✅ When you use Option A or B that I described in my article to engage with remote content (rewritten to your home server) and then copy/share that rewritten link:

That link points to the version of the post as seen from your own server.

My home server has successfully fetched and cached the public content. So:

For non-Fedi users (not logged in, no account):

The link will work as for all public posts. And for non-fedi users that is all they see anyway.

@deadsuperhero

Cool - later I'll update part 1 to point to part 2, but that just went live yeseteday.

@deadsuperhero Assume you saw part 2?

https://indieweb.social/@tchambers/114739709799083596

@deadsuperhero Wow, Sean, can't wait to read it. Thanks!

@trwnh It's as viewable as any remote fediverse link is now.

@daringfireball OK cool.

@trwnh So that answered your question as to how I suggest to do this, and why would this exclude anyone on the web?

They would see all pubic content fine. And as they aren't fediverse uses, they couldn't socially engage, follow or boost social content in either case, as they aren't fedi users.

@trwnh Read my article and the links from it for details.

@trwnh Hmmm.

"Q4 2016, Blockmetry found about 0.2% of worldwide desktop and mobile pageviews had JavaScript disabled... More recent surveys aren’t publicly available, but analytics tools like Google now report “fewer than 0.1%” of Google Search users with JS disabled."

So that's not zero but it is a tiny edge case.