Users treat their WordPress websites like red-headed step children because people who cobble together themes and plugins while calling themselves building custom websites do stupid, stupid things.
Just because you can do anything you want with WordPress doesn’t mean you should do whatever you want with WordPress, or any other tool for that matter.
After more than a year and several WordPress updates, an overhaul of the core Date/Time component concluded. WordPress 5.3 will ship with fixes for long-standing bugs and new API functions.
The core Date/Time component is a rabbit hole which is not for the faint of heart, and I’m glad to see these changes coming to WordPress 5.3.
Is there a legitimate reason to do this other than pure unadulterated ableism? That’s not a rhetorical question.
If it weren’t for all the accessibility improvements to the main widgets screen, I would quite literally be prevented from completing this project.
So whoever did all this work, (and it was probably done in very large part by Andria Fercia), thank you so much, I owe you a ton right now. If it wasn’t all Andria, or if it was completely someone else, please get in touch so I can edit this post to ensure that you are publicly thanked by name or names.
I would be totally screwed right now if it weren’t for all your hard work.
I’m putting together this play list for my wake and writing about my life while I am able. Time will come when I won’t have the strength. I want to make sure that my daughter Siobhan ( born with severe intellectual disabilities) understands what is happening and that she feels included in the process. I’ve used some songs she will recognize. In this way she’ll hopefully feel included.
I’ll try to do it quickly. Hopefully there’s enough time.
If you don’t know who Joe is, he’s one of the original gangsters of WordPress Accessibility.
Through this connection he is someone very dear to me.
Covers captions/subtitles, audio description of visual information, media players, and other accessibility requirements.
This Essay develops an approach to interpreting computer trespass laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, that ban unauthorized access to a computer. In the last decade, courts have divided sharply on what makes access unauthorized. Some courts have interpreted computer trespass laws broadly to prohibit trivial wrongs such as violating terms of use to a website. Other courts have limited the laws to harmful examples of hacking into a computer. Courts have struggled to interpret authorization because they lack an underlying theory of how to distinguish authorized from unauthorized access.
This Essay argues that authorization to access a computer is contingent on trespass norms—shared understandings of what kind of access invades another person’s private space. Judges are unsure of how to apply computer trespass laws because the Internet is young and its trespass norms are unsettled. In the interim period before norms emerge, courts should identify the best rules to apply as a matter of policy. Judicial decisions in the near term can help shape norms in the long term. The remainder of the Essay articulates an appropriate set of rules using the principle of authentication. Access is unauthorized when the computer owner requires authentication to access the computer and the access is not by the authenticated user or his agent. This principle can resolve the meaning of authorization before computer trespass norms settle and can influence the norms that eventually emerge.