Hey new people, you don't need to use link shorteners on Mastodon π
All links on Mastodon are counted as 23 characters towards your post size limit, regardless of how long they actually are.
More info at https://fedi.tips/you-dont-need-link-shorteners-on-mastodon
[#]FediTips #MastoTips #Mastodon
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips Youtube's built in link shortener "youtu.be" actually breaks the link previews too.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from weston@techhub.social
@FediTips Yes, please do NOT use link shorteners here, folks! So we can inspect the link and know where we're going. I won't bother clicking on a shortened link.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Nonya_Bidniss@infosec.exchange
@Nonya_Bidniss @FediTips @jurjen_heeck I actually have a filter set up for most common link shorteners, it's an excellent timesaver π
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sindarina@ngmx.com
@Nonya_Bidniss @FediTips Then again, there are tools to check i.e. unshorten links with a safety score before opening. Like https://unshorten.it/ could come in handy (maybe for those shortlinks outside Mastodon then).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from helma@mastodon.social
@helma I know that, for crying out loud. Why make people do the extra work? Why not work with the way the platform is designed already to allow for the length of a full URL without counting it against a character count? So your solution is to make everyone do more work because people don't want to plug a readable link into their posts. @FediTips
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Nonya_Bidniss@infosec.exchange
@FediTips Interesting. Just tested it out, and if I link to something short, it's still 23. http://foo.ca counts as 23. That's bizarre.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from xinit@mastodon.coffee
@FediTips wh-- why 23???
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from efi@chitter.xyz
@efi
It's apparently the length of shortened links generated by Twitter's original link shortener at the time that Mastodon was first developed.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@efi @FediTips Dunno. But 23 and 42 are special numbers in the computer world π€ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_(film)#See_also
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regendans@toot.community
@FediTips Caveat: If a screen reader user is going to read your post and you put a link that isn't short in the post, have it be the last thing in the post. If it's just whatever.tld/thing or something you should be fine, but if it's even some articles that use wordpress or otherwise have long links it's too long and we assume there's no more text after the link and will stop speech once the link starts being read out because it just takes too long. That's the consensus I've been able to gather anyway. Of course for posts with multiple links that have those for a reason this is slightly problematic, and in that case put them on separate lines so maybe a screen reader using a web-based client can navigate by line through the post?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@x0
Thanks for bringing this up!
Do screen reader apps read the entire link every time, regardless of how long the link is?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips It depends on the fedi client actually, but it's up to the client not the screen reader itself. If the client truncates the link as displayed visually, E.G> with an elipsis, then the screen reader should probably also see that and truncate. But if the text of the link is displayed in full, then the screen reader will read it in full. The client I'm using actually speaks directly through the screen reader and thus also has it spoken fully, it's a client designed specifically for blind users. In sum, if it's displayed visually in full, that text is given to the screen reader, and thus it's going to read it in full too, as it will act based on what it is given with minimal transformation for just blocks of text. Transformation comes into play for complex elements like those in HTML, E.G. speaking the word link before reading out the name of a link, but text is text and unless the app goes out of its way to expose something different to the screen reader than what is shown, which is platform, screen reader and framework ddependent, what you see is ideally what you get in terms of text.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@x0
Okay, that's really interesting to hear.
So, if I understand correctly, if the Fedi client shortens it with an elipsis then there isn't a problem?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips Yes, that'll be given as is to the screen reader with the elipsis included. If it's displayed in full, though, as most things on desktop at least would do, it will be read out fully. Someone posted an Amazon link once. This entire 700+ character link would be read out... You should use shortened amazon links for that reason I'd suspect, although removing tracking info might also be enough. If you plug an amazon link into bitly you get their custom amzn.to, or the share thing for emailing links might do it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@x0
Thank you so much for taking the time on detailing this perspective. I will try to look into this further for the fedi.tips website.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips You're welcome! I'm by no mmeans a representative speaker for the blind community, but I can try and put you in touch with a few others to get a wider perspective. You might also try posting that you're looking for perspectives of people with different disabilities, blindness, deafness, other visual impairments etc, a fair few of them might already follow you and reach out.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@x0
Yup, definitely, that is sort of what I was planning to do!
There was a somewhat similar situation a while ago about whether hashtags are more accessible at the end of posts or mixed in with the main text. Different people gave different perspectives, so I posted a poll and thread asking just screen reader users about where to put hashtags.
The results were a split of about 66% for tags at the end and 33% tags mixed in with the text, so it was well worth asking as it wasn't unanimous.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips Yup I think I remember seeing that. I'd personally say it depends on how they're being used. if you tag individual words in your sentence that otherwise make sense without the hashtags, doing that's fine, and the word 'number' or 'hashtag' shouldn't be too much in the way, even less if just one symbol in Braille. Then you put extra auxiliary ones at the end that you couldn't fit in a sentence, after any links. If you use ending mentions I'm unsure exactly where those go.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
Can confirm! All that Extra cruff at the end was a tracking thing on Amazon link. I'd actually suggest removing all tracking things in general so links just automatically become shorter. I wouldn't want to make link shorteners a common practice because I like hearing and feeling where the link goes, especially if it's for blogs and such because the date will be in there sometimes, and a post hint will be in the URL but a link shorter removes all of that for me.
I do agree that having multiple links at the end, on their own lines, is much easier to skim, especially with a Braille display!
But I've figured out that if everybody at least moves all the tracking junk from links, with something like Clear URL, links become far more informative again!
@x0 @FediTips
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WeirdWriter@caneandable.social
@WeirdWriter @FediTips DO you have a simple way of doing that with as many links as possible? Might be something FT can put on their thing like, you don't need link shorteners even more now, half the reason links are long is because of tracking! Strip it like this and now it doesn't take up tons of space either!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
This is the extension I use to get rid of all tracking crap in links https://docs.clearurls.xyz/1.26.1/ @x0 @FediTips
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WeirdWriter@caneandable.social
@x0 @FediTips
This has gotten me curious. I'd like to tinker a bit on this. Do you happen to know which screen readers are problematic with this approach?
The web should be accessible to anyone.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from h3artbl33d@exquisite.social
@h3artbl33d @FediTips As I understand, any sane screen reader that doesn't do overly in-depth manipulations on its output text will do this. And if you're reading, say, an address bar, you might want the entire thing. If it gets text, it's just supposed to give you the text. On the web elements get rendered differently, headings, links, lists etc are indicated by special markers in speech and Braille and can be navigated, but text is just text, and even if that text is a hyperlink the screen reader is going to read all that is shown.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@x0 @FediTips
Thank you. That makes much sense. Right now, the preferable path forward is a bit unclear, other than that we should fix any issue.
At least in western society, the web has become so... foundamental that we should make sure that everyone is able to navigate and use it without any exception.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from h3artbl33d@exquisite.social
@h3artbl33d @FediTips There isn't really any preferable path really, it's more about individual user's needs. I suppose the biggest guideline is never generate links so long that this would be an issue? But then who decided when a link is too long? And in what context? I spoke in the context of social media posts in a microblog format brought about by Mastodon and those it interoperates with. This does not necessarily apply to everything on the web.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from x0@dragonscave.space
@FediTips
How do people actually use them?
It sounds like a weird amount of effort if you don't need to, particularly given the higher character limit. I'm wondering if some of this is people cross-posting.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sourcejedi@mastodon.social
@sourcejedi
I think some people have just got in the habit of using them, especially those who remember Twitter's old limit of 140 characters.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services
@FediTips @sourcejedi
Personally, I am less interested in the reasoning, but all the more interested in protecting our community against any form of tracking.
Yet, blocking any and all shorteners might cause unwanted breakage. I'll dive a bit more into this. IMHO, ultimately it is up to our members.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from h3artbl33d@exquisite.social
@h3artbl33d @FediTips @sourcejedi A lot of enterprises block all forms of URL shorteners to protect staff from malware links disguised by a shortened URL.
I can see reasons and use cases for them, just be aware that they won't always work for some people.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Tubsta@soc.feditime.com
@Tubsta @sourcejedi @FediTips
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from h3artbl33d@exquisite.social
@h3artbl33d @sourcejedi @FediTips Nope, I don't see there a use for them here. Typical use case would be trade show merch, emails and the like. And you should use your own shortener that is aligned to your brand to ensure trust.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Tubsta@soc.feditime.com
@Tubsta @sourcejedi @FediTips
My personal attitude: I don't trust shorteners. The only legit usecase are forms of tracking. Or maybe redteaming :flan_molotov:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from h3artbl33d@exquisite.social
@FediTips I'm glad I follow you even though I'm here for some time now, I always learn new things!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from leberschnitzel@existiert.ch
@FediTips
Please do not use "link shorteners." Let readers see the full url, so that they know what they're in for, and to assure users that typical tracking info, if there, has been deleted. The latter especially is a big deal.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from huntingdon@mstdn.social
@FediTips we love you π
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from YoMamaYoMama@mastodon.social
@FediTips
given that they use different links on different platforms, i suspect that most people use link shorteners as trackers.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hotarubiko@infosec.exchange
@FediTips how do you get followers? Nobody seems to follow or follow back on the platform, itβs disappointing.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from justincroser@mstdn.social
@FediTips
Avoid link shorteners.
https://t.co/elon
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from SpaceLifeForm@infosec.exchange
@FediTips why 23?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from zstg@fedia.social
@zstg
It was apparently the length of Twitter's link shortener links in 2016 when Mastodon was created.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from FediTips@social.growyourown.services This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini