Notices by muesli (fribbledom@mastodon.social), page 44

@CarlCravens

I'm repeating myself a lot here, but alas 😆

They don't have to require nick registrations, or they could integrate it with their existing auth infrastructure on the web.

Also there are self-hosted solutions like matrix/thelounge which they could provide to the community.

Those offer persistent chat history, a web interface and allow you to post images/videos/media just fine.

@gabek

This is exactly my point: yes, "old school" IRC clients may be a bit overwhelming, but they can host their own infrastructure and provide a Discord-like experience for everyone that prefers that over a client you have to install.

They just pretend that doesn't exist.

@Rude

I'm not even seeing the regular user getting in touch with that. That's an infrastructure Mozilla hosts and has under their own control. You don't need nick registrations and you don't need to do them in your IRC clients. They already host all their auth infrastructure which they can integrate with.

@veer66

What was the barrier she encountered? What does Discord's (just as an example) registration process do differently that makes it easier?

This is feedback the projects require for them to improve this situation.

@Tuttifruttihat

That's in Mozilla's hands tho. They run their own infrastructure. They can integrate the registration with their existing auth services (web interface, yay), and they define they the rules of those channels. You can get away without registrations just fine.

@orekix

If you're looking for a self-hosted solution, I'd recommend thelounge. Got a web interface, works great on mobiles, offers chat history, link previews and pasting photos/videos/media to IRC.

@Tuttifruttihat

You need to register and account on Discord, too. Actually nobody's even forcing you to register on IRC.

@measlytwerp

I can absolutely understand those issues, but in this particular case I don't think you would actually get in touch with them. That's something for Mozilla to run and moderate.

@ewankeep

Those are issues under Mozilla's control though. They already run their own infrastructure, so they define the rules. Nothing prevents them from integrating the IRC nick registrations with their existing auth services they already provide on the web.

@edebill

That's nothing you would do as a user, that's for Mozilla to provide the infrastructure for - like they already do and will keep doing.

@orekix

Granted I consider voice & audio an entirely different application, but emotes & link previews are supported just fine the clients I use.

@gnomon

No no no! No spam detected here. I really appreciate all your replies!

@gnomon

This culture is defined by the people that partake in it though.

If you force the same people to migrate over to another platform, how would you expect Susan to have a better time all of a sudden?

Shitty people are shitty people whether they are connected to IRC or Discord. You have a people problem then, not an accessibility problem.

@measlytwerp

Sorry, but I really don't buy that particular argument. _All_ of them are awful? Every single one of them?

Have you tried thelounge (just to name a popular self-hosted example)? How is it any different than discord in terms of user experience and accessibility?

@sandrockcstm

I believe anyone who at least tries to explain to me what their issue is. Then I can either help them or try to improve the status quo (IRCv3).

Right now all I hear is people repeating "common opinion" and when you ask them what the issue is, it turns out they haven't even bothered to try to log on to IRC just once... "because everyone knows it's so bad and old-school".

Maybe I just have the wrong definition of accessibility.

To me IRC is far more accessible than any of the proprietary services, because it's an open protocol. It allows me to pick the client that is most accessible _to me_.

And your needs may be different than mine.

Don't want users having to install their own client? Host a matrix/thelounge like service, which gives you the best of both worlds.

You can use your own client or this service then. How does it get any more accessible than that?

@sandrockcstm

Oh I believe it, that doesn't mean I can't be a little perplexed by it. I'm really just asking for someone to explain to me what's the actual issue they're having.

And I do get the feeling it just boils down to "I just want to open a website" because it feels more convenient. Not wanting to learn or experience new things is not an accessibility issue though.

@gamehawk

Isn't that a problem with the people rather than a technical issue tho?

Now you move the very same people to an external service and expect them to suddenly behave differently and more welcoming?

I don't think I see that happening.

@emsenn@tenforward.socia

That's a solved issue though: host your own server infrastructure, connect it with your existing LDAP and auth services.

The second part (and I agree it's the bigger issue) can be solved by offering a web interface like matrix or thelounge does.

I really think this is just a cop out trying to justify the move to an external service.

I really don't get the accessibility issues people claim to have with IRC.

You need a server name, a nick name and a channel name.

Three(!) settings and you're all set. Two of which (server & channel) can be encoded in a link you can simply click on. Which leaves us with: you need to pick a nick-name to partake on IRC.

So really... picking a nick-name is considered an accessibility issue these days?