There's a "Wayland set the Linux desktop back" blog going around now and ... it just makes me so tired.

That take is so amazingly wrong, but so persistent and popular. It is the "immigrants took mah job!" of takes for software. It is so flawed in so many different ways, and utterly ignores the host of actual reasons that Linux has stalled on the desktop.

It is apparently seductive, too, because it offloads the blame entirely on the crew developing Wayland without the person casting the blame considering for even a second the actual complexity of the problems. I could literally write a book on the reasons that the Linux desktop hasn't caught on; and I would, too, if I thought people would actually buy it and read it (a lot of people, I mean - enough to justify writing a book...)

But it boils down to this: Linux desktop development doesn't have more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the funding per year that Microsoft or Apple spend on marketing a single product line. Much less the kind of funds that go into R&D.

Vendors, mostly, are disinterested in supporting an OS that has less than 10% market share. At times they have even been actively dissuaded from doing so by certain other companies...

Users are, by and large, not willing to deal with inconvenience or having to learn new things in order to adopt the Linux desktop, even though the two main vendors are constantly making the user experience worse and continually taking away control of our own devices.

Wayland? It's a convenient scapegoat.

I'm not, by the way, arguing that Wayland is perfect, or that the community behind it has executed everything perfectly. And I'm certainly not arguing that people haven't had bad experiences with Wayland; that hasn't been _my_ experience, but I also have been using Linux for 30 years now -- and I choose hardware based on its Linux compatibility. I also have different expectations from a desktop than someone who has used Windows or macOS most of their life.

OK. Rant over. Be nicer to the Wayland folks. Stop blaming them for everything. In fact, let's maybe consider that what would really be useful is constructive takes on how we can succeed from here.

L'Observatoire du respect des obligations d’accessibilité numérique de la Fédération des Aveugles et Amblyopes de France a publié un article nommé « Accessibilité numérique des services publics – seulement 6,5% des démarches essentielles sont conformes à la loi ! ».

En 2022, j'avais publié deux articles d'analyses des résultats de l'observatoire de la DINUM qui analyse la qualité des démarches publiques essentielles. À l'époque, cet observatoire donnait des informations erronées et faisait croire à des résultats bien meilleurs qu'ils ne l'étaient. 40% de démarches essentielles étaient annoncées accessibles, par exemple. Pourtant, seules 2% étaient totalement conformes au RGAA…

Mon dernier article de 2022 est ici si vous voulez vous remémorez ces choses honteuses (j'avais moi-même oublié à quel point ça l'était…).

Bref, de 2% en 2022 à 6,5% de démarches 100% conformes au RGAA en 2026, on ne peut pas dire que ce soit très glorieux…

On mérite des services publics accessibles. Ils devraient tous l'être depuis 2011-2012. Le délai d'application était là. Et la volonté politique, où est-elle ?

Je vous invite vivement à lire l'analyse détaillée de l’Observatoire du respect des obligations d’accessibilité numérique !

#handicap #accessibilité #RGAA #a11y

Guess who's behind the sudden rush of age verification legislation?

In the US, #Meta is spending $26.3 Million to hire at least 86 Lobbyists from 40 lobbying firms, and lobbying in at least 45 states. It is confirmed that Meta wrote the Louisiana age verification bill.

In the EU, Meta is spending ten million euros annually on lobbying, retaining 18 lobbying firms.

Edit: this article is based on LLM generated material, and I haven't spent the time to check its sources

https://tboteproject.com/