I had no idea of what an accessibility mess WordPress editor, Gutenberg, had become till now. Screen reader focus gets literally fucked up, no other term can be self-explanatory, as soon as I press Enter to create a new block.
I have used it only in its core distribution, not the plugin or WordPressCom release. Now I am realizing how scary WordPress future is, so, my decision is more than confirmed.
I can no longer say "I'm leaving WordPress" but "I left WordPress" - now my main website runs under WriteFreely and I'm building its main structure. The English domain, however, may change from "domain dot ext slash english", to "english dot domain dot ext". Sorry for any inconvenience.
Here it is - I have created Issue 776 on WriteFreely's github for a serious accessibility issue I am meeting with screen readers. Yes, many things should be improved but this one is the most urgent because it's blocking me.
cc @writefreely @write_as @matt
Mentioning also @michael who forked WriteFreely as far as I can remember.
Here's the issue's link:
https://github.com/writefreely/writefreely/issues/1776
#a11y #accessibility #blind #bugReport #css #github #issue #WriteFreely
UPDATE: I left WordPress today. This unstable situation has destroyed me. Damn to them.
I'm leaving WordPress platform very, very soon.
Mullenweg must give clear, transparent answers on what he wants, because we are thousand of people with disability, left behind.
An Open Letter to Matt Mullenweg on Accessibility in WordPress – Blind Access Journal https://blindaccessjournal.com/2026/10/an-open-letter-to-matt-mullenweg-on-accessibility-in-wordpress/
my position may disturb someone, but I have no intention to keep quiet for others not to feel offended.
Given the huge amount of malicious non-interacting actors on Fediverse, I made a decision: blocking every account whose profile is 90 percent made of donation requests.
Most Fediverse platforms have a feature to pin one or more posts to the top of profile. Mastodon instances have 5 pinned posts. Well, is it possible that one profile has all 5 pinned posts concerning donation request, and the bio as well, then they continue along the timeline, "in need of help" for this or that?
To clarify: I'm not drastically against people asking for help, Fediverse's disability is not to have an embeddable and reliable monetization system so everyone must use the resources they have.
But, if donations are not matching to a trustworthy association, with documented money purposes, goals achieved, etc., it's very difficult to prove which one is an imposter and who is in good faith instead.
Images of war, hunger, any brutality, can unfortunately be found everywhere. If you send me a pic, video or audio with a devastated city, why should I prefer donating to you, rather than a health-related association working in war territories?
I am very sorry but I don't trust anyone with no verification.
RE: https://mastodon.scot/@RabBrucesSpider1/117456303696133667
As I always say, privacy concerns are essential and real. But complete ban with no exception, is not the solution. We all should scream against surveillance and abuse, claiming more respectful technology which can help vulnerable people. I honestly feel uncomfortable when hearing people almost adoring meta. I just say that, currently, as smart wearable tech, meta is the less evil we have, which can consistently help.
I'm blind, not a fool. So, before being enthusiast and purchase a product (or subscribe to a trial) better to read frequently asked questions.
This one, Guide Interaction, claims to be an agent which helps navigating to inaccessible contents and do tasks for you.
It could reach places where the traditional screen readers wouldn't go, but basically it means paying at least 8 dollars per month, given to an American company (or two, including Anthropic), in order to solve what developers should take care about. Yes, I even could theoretically pay for it and then say "wow, I'm using all open source software! Yay!" without caring of unmaintained accessibility for some popular free and open source productivity suites - Windows based, as the app runs there.
But that isn't independence. That's profit. That's taking advantage of vulnerable people, to earn money. And in their site they also say prices are affordable! But if you just pay a traditional AI, just in case? Are they serious?
Everyone can think what they want, but having spent already 1000 euro for standard Jaws for Windows screen reader, I have no intention of adding 25 extra monthly dollars, euro may be even more, to overcome what other people should have made accessible. I don't pay for others' responsibility!
Fortunately someone is talking about smart glasses and blind people, in mainstream media. This matter must be taken seriously.
Today I quoted someone who said "no one worries so much of camera equipped phones" but about glasses, there is a huge difference: glasses can be kept always on, with camera recording. Take a pic and film someone is matter of a second.
But the message that has not passed, is that they are not spying/recording by default (or the battery would be drained).
I have tried them with an app called "scribe me" yesterday, with a live assistant describing objects around me. And, having video always on, drains the battery drastically. That's why I find NO SENSE in keeping them always turned on! Can I say that paradoxically I feel more scared by extreme anti-glasses movement, than about glasses themselves?
Being protecting and defending our privacy is a duty. But, it would be better done being aggressive towards the companies, claiming more privacy respect, not against single users making their lives impossible. Banning glasses from school, for example, is a barrier against blind students (and teachers).
We need more protection, we ask it.
Blind and visually impaired people fear smart glasses backlash https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmx2qlz7ney2o
[SARCASM] my journey to become a real pervert glasses user. I earned 10 perv aura points today. [/SARCASM]
SERIOUS: here's the difference between a blind-optimized pair of smart glasses, and a mainstream one. But the blind-only optimized trained AI model, is not long-term reliable because of those companies business models which count just on one niche of people.
Scenario: a stranger toilet, where you need to go but you have no idea how dirty it is.
Blind-optimized glasses. Command: "Where is the toilet paper roll?"
Glasses output: it takes a picture and describes the environment accordingly, in case providing directions as well: the roll is on the wall on your right. That depends on software.
Mainstream glasses, native Meta AI model:
Command: Where's the toilet paper roll?
AI output: it attempts to find public toilets around my area.
I have to entirely specify "look at the surroundings, take a picture and look for a toilet paper on the walls, then tell me the direction where I can find it"
But now, it's the less evil alternative I have because Envision is shutting down, then we have Agiga Echo Glasses sold just in the USA, Fovionic coming from Brazil but they're startups which who knows where they end up.
Pervert aura milestone 1: find the toilet paper.
Pervert aura milestone 2: tell me how dirty it is when it's used. Tell me the amount of shit released. Its color.
I'm ironic on this, but if well trained, an AI on wearable devices can seriously avoid me to dirty my hands while searching for objects in an unknown restroom.
Within some days I'll be directly experiencing what Meta glasses do, and don't do, for blind people. I'm going to report each time they work and when they don't. My attempt is to find a concrete debate, a healthy discussion, which can become constructive to create a starting point for possible exceptions in public places smart glasses bans, for blind users of these equipments.
We have no fault if we are blind, we have no fault if others use those glasses to record non-consenting photos or videos, to spy on people, to share on social networks even when they go to toilet. There is a high risk to be stigmatized once again, only because someone has installed one application on their phone which warns them about a turned on smart glasses equipment in their proximity.
This doesn't mean that Meta is an ethical corporation, this does not mean that privacy and surveillance concerns do not exist. I have always openly talked against Meta and this does not imply that I've changed my mind.
The fact I feel to justify myself gives me a negative sensation, like when LGBT+ people must specify the reason why they ask to be legally recognized as couples like any other two people who certify to the law that they live and build a future together. Something that for any healthy reasoning person is simply obvious: everybody has their right to exist, in the way they decide, not with an establishment built by some politician or religious power who do not count others' needs, complex or simple as they are.
For a blind or low vision person, a pair of smart glasses is like a guide dog. Stop.
Does anyone here think that a guide dog, at home or at work with their owner, lifts their head up and licks their owner's genitals? I don't think so, I hope such a disgusting thought will never pass into anyone's brain. Such a thought would sound evil just to be mentioned.
But it's what I feel every time someone calls "pervert glasses" my wearable aid. I feel like someone assuming that in case of owning a dog, I would keep him for self-satisfaction tasks. Is it clear this way?
@sfscon @Two9A @stefano
@DavidGoldfield up to you, for placing it into tech-vi.
On November 13th and 14th 2026 I'll speak at @sfscon - to be more precise it'll be on Saturday 14th at 10:20 in the morning.
My talk, 15 minutes, is "reclaiming our choice: why digital independence demands accessibility in FOSS"
It's a 15 minutes speech where I'm going to explain what's right and what's wrong in current approach. Why blind people rely on politically/technically vulnerable tech? What has been already done and what should FOSS community improve?
SPOILER: making all people feel guilty about commercial and expensive tech is not the right direction. Not for us, at least.
I'll also mention the effort made by @Two9A Imran Nazar, who inspired by @stefano -Stefano Marinelli-'s FediMeteo, has built a Fediverse project to allow Muslim believers to be warned about when to pray.
A very specific need, for a very specific community, made by someone who feels this need and wanted to cover it. But the narration "do it yourself if you need", can't always work for everyone, especially when concerning code learning.
My talk's explanation:
Whole DiDay program:
RE: https://infosec.exchange/@josephcox/117315761403151624
I share this one, for blind users like me. We must become aware of what Meta really does.
Some days ago, I saw a post on the applevis.com website (a community for blind and low vision users) very enthusiastic of Muse and what it does, simply sending a message via WhatsApp. True, here in the EU, Muse isn't available.
I was astonished of that, and wondered where the trap was.
And now here it is: Meta involves humans, making us believe that we are using a machine.
That means, we are using Meta's slaves.
Because when a human works for 24 hours, paid a pair of cents or even nothing, the word to use is slavery.
People following me here, know that I don't agree with most guilty narration/propaganda shared by extremists in the "no AI" movement, so I rather push forwards the awareness narration, that is, Meta is acquiring slaves and providing them to us, declaring it's giving us a machine-driven service. In other words, they're de-humanizing someone in Africa or in who knows which other unmentioned country.
And consequences? We can in short term use these agents as an accessibility aid, to overcome barriers placed by original site's developers and designers; but then? Restaurants, shops, etc, have their right to block automated (or semi-automated) services from browsing their site and acting in it. Then? Inaccessibility issues remain there, undocumented. With them unaware. With the result of us remaining blind as before, but screwed and fooled. Seduced and abandoned, unaware of having exploited someone else's slave.
Who should feel guilty then? Meta, I think; they're in the heaviest position.
RE: https://social.coop/@smallcircles/117268097138431761
I agree: most time it seems that Fediverse is full of people complaining and feeling depressed; it's not the first time I feel doomscrolling like the old commercial platforms, I think we are a capable community but we should roll up our sleeves, and go ahead.
RE: https://dragonscave.space/@amir/117256440662863011
I'm one of those people giving a chance to assisted coding, or marketing-familiar name "vibe-coding", for blind people to create new systems and components covering their specific needs. But my position doesn't mean I'm in favor of passively accepting all what the bot extracts and builds for us.
The fact a bot builds from human's effort without permission is a huge objection, but there is one more matter in needs of most attentions: too much enthusiasm creates more damages than benefits.
Let's tell the truth: a non-skilled, sighted or blind, can create a component which ruins what already work, to make something else work.
And yes, even a sighted can create (in complete good faith) a component for NVDA screen reader, if I try to say "NVDA is missing this".
Just talk, and in 24 hours you have a solution? That would be to good to be true, in fact it isn't. It takes hours, months, of testing because the bot is not a full-knowledge source, it must be "manipulated".
I'd prefer with no doubt, a world with better programmers, better/easier ways to get skilled so that we can even cover our needs on our own.
But we live in this world, assisted coding is here, and I do all my best to invite people learning what it really means.
I could do miracles, let's call them, using my background to create new "vibe-coded" software pieces. But I'm maybe too careful, who knows, and feel that I'm in the less evil direction. Use enthusiasm, use tools, but taking steps only when I know what I do.
RE: https://hachyderm.io/@tristan/117237731901029023
I hate the abuse (misuse) of term "accessibility". And the abuse of term "blind" too - in many youtube video in fact, you find "blind game" when someone's referring to a player demonstrating their first-time game play. And no, I'm not one of those folks accusing of "ableism" every dog piss. That's not ableism, but confusion. Lexicon confusion.
And for accessible, there should be specified. Accessible to blind and/or low-vision, or other. Accessible used as umbrella term, risks to bring disinformation.
I don't know in English, but I get very angry when in my language (Italian) I find the equivalent of word "accessible", used to say that a product is AFFORDABLE. Meaning it's cheap, anyone could buy it.
That triggers me much. As a blind person, as an accessibility professional, as a person who knows that words count. Even in a world where sighted tend to focus everything on images.
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blindmetalgamer/117231432644299249
Sarcasm mode: What a pervert! Here's a smart glasses (meta ray ban) user who posts videos! Conspiration! There's Secret Police around us now! This person doesn't see, but glasses do! Sarcasm mode off.
I'm making fun of fediverse's extremists, but this one is a blind person using meta glasses for everyday tasks.
Seriously: privacy concerns remain, but the right approach is to talk to users directly.
I'm just in the middle. An accessibility professional, aware of concerns, and of needs. And waiting a better solution before intensive glasses usage (I have Solos, not Meta) but I think the compromise between accessibility and privacy will be just matter of time. Awareness and prohibitions of these devices are spreading.
I hope not to have someone following me, who thinks that all smart glasses users should be listed into sex offenders register.
Reasoning this way, I could wish that every man claiming himself as heterosexual, should be into sex offender list if his body includes hands, voice, tongue, eyes, penis.
How would it sound? Exaggerated, right? Extreme? Yes, it is.
But if the smart glasses users would be registered as sex offenders, even for us blind people could be a disaster. Even without having sexually harassed anyone.
If someone with that kind of reasoning is among my followers, well, you'd better disappear immediately from my contact list, I don't want anything to do with those dick head thinkers. Sorry.
I assumed that Fediverse could really be an open, progressive environment where to discuss ideas and grow up, with different points of view. But what I'm finding lately, is something different. Narration going from "pro AI / glasses" to "no AI / glasses" so if you don't maintain a position, you are just in favor of fascists or perverts.
The last one I had a discussion with, called me "a waste of time" because I made him realize that a sighted pervert can use his own eyes, without glasses, while I fasten my shoes strings, bent over. Instead of joining me, thinking of a proposal to satisfy blind people's needs while protecting privacy, no. The problem is me.
Same for github/codeberg stuff: do AI-built pull-requests ruin open source software? Yes.
Is AI-generated code dirty and unreliable? Yes.
Have hand made coders the right to prohibit automated code? Yes, of course.
But same coders, went on for years saying "I'm an independant coder, a small company, I have no resources to make it accessible to blind, if you need it, make it yourself".
Now, thanks to assisted coding, many of us blind are doing exactly this: trying to solve their gaps by having the bots fix the issue. Then, to help other users (and the coder himself), they place the fix in form of pull request, into the repository. And it's often refused.
But, would the original coder ever solve accessibility? No. I'm alone, it's a small company, you're the first blind user I hear, and similar bullshit.
What, the fuck, should, we, do?
From far-right, I know what to expect: they're racist, ableists, and all the worst. They don't hide it. But I couldn't definitely expect such behaviours from people caring for freedom, ethics, open technologies, etc. I'm fed up of being considered an object who can gladly be sacrificed for purity of something or someone.
UPDATE: on blindness, coding and AI, please read this story, wrote by an experienced blind guy, about the topic:
And as the discussion must be complete, I also add another point of view, together with the one pro vibe-coding.
On the link below, Robert (another experienced blind person) talks about "disability dongle", meaning those super-tech hardwares made for disability, but are more for inspirational videos than for real time usage. Expensive and uncomfortable.
Robert talks about hardware but it can easily be applied to AI as well: it's far from affordable, not with disability in mind, it must be well trained and you use more tokens to get what you want...
I'm not pro, I'm not against, I'm in the middle. Appreciate good, hate the bad. And want the discussion to be more balanced.