« first day (1362 days earlier)      last day (1887 days later) » 

1:05 AM
user image
2
this was hard to find in chat history
things to vote on reasons picture visual voting green red guide
 
 
2 hours later…
3:18 AM
^ Thoughts?
I propose we edit out the first question here, which is a duplicate of judaism.stackexchange.com/q/37264, and edit the answers below so they address only the "relationship" part. What do y'all think? cc @sabbahillel — msh210 ♦ 6 mins ago
^ Thoughts?
 
 
2 hours later…
4:56 AM
@IsaacMoses Best as I could tell, you and @msh210 were debating the utility of writing a description of a text screenshot w/o putting in the scanned text, and therefore you (@IsaacMoses) removed the alt-text completely from my sanhedrin answer?
And then Fred (not pingable in chat by mere mortals) replaced the scan with typed up text, which was very nice of him.
 
5:10 AM
@Shokhet I'm guessing that you maybe preferred the image since it was smaller and less obtrusive, while also not critical to the answer?
 
Hi @Fred :)
(currently pingable by mortals)
 
@Shokhet Hi. Shavua tov!
 
@Fred Shavua tov :)
@Fred Correct. One option mentioned in the Meta post about making MY friendlier included having the image, with the typed text included as the alt-txt.....I happen to prefer the look of a shot of Jastrow in a definitions answer, but that's a personal preference
 
@Shokhet, I was seeking advice, not debating, and I put an alt text including a quotation of the start of the entry, per @msh210's advice
 
@IsaacMoses Okay; I didn't have a lot of time on Friday to spend in chat.
 
5:16 AM
@Shokhet NP. @Fred, thanks for the big type-up
 
@Shokhet I see (I was reading some of the back and forth, too). Well, if you want to keep the typed version (or some pared down version of it), one way to make the wall of text I put in less tedious might be to headline-format the dictionary entry and add links to break things up.
 
@IsaacMoses What do you think about putting the entire piece of Jastrow in the alt-text?
@Fred Like you just did? ;-)
 
@Shokhet Yes, for example.
 
@Shokhet, why not just text as text?
 
@IsaacMoses @Fred I'd like to second that thanks. Also, thanks for the WP links -- those look interesting?
....and a lot of links. Wow, thanks!
 
5:20 AM
@IsaacMoses @Shokhet NP.
@Shokhet Again, feel free to edit that version or pare it down as you like - I won't be offended. :)
 
@Shokhet @Fred Not sure what the question mark is doing at the end of that sentence -- it wasn't intended :]
 
@Shokhet I am mollified.
 
@msh210, wild beasts are not a dupe for mosquitos - potentially different issues. Neither question I clude sufficient motivation
 
@IsaacMoses Because I like the way it looks, mostly. Also, it could also be a little easier for sighted users to read, and gloss over if they want to ignore it.
 
@Shokhet You could knock out everything but the first sentence, in which case it would still provide most of the relevant information, and it would be easy to gloss over. Or you could keep some of the other stuff and add a lot of ellipses.
 
5:29 AM
@Fred True, but (I think) there are still those who would like to look through the sources provided, which they can't do if all that is gone.
@Fred Hm. I don't know how much can be taken out, for those interested in "further reading."
 
@Shokhet You could move most of it to a footnote with sup or sub text, which would solve that problem.
 
@Fred That might work....I still like the look of the scan in an answer, though. I think it accomplishes the same, in a simpler way.
 
5:54 AM
@Shokhet Your answer, your call.
@Shokhet If so, maybe you could use a modified version of the first sentence as the alt-text (including a transliteration of the Greek from wiktionary)?
 
@Fred Also true :P ....do you think that all the text you typed up should serve as the alt-txt for the image? (cc @IsaacMoses @msh210)
@Fred That could work; though to keep things fair for those not sighted, shouldn't we give them all the information we're giving everyone else? I assume that just as there are sighted people interested in the "further reading" part of a Jastrow dictionary entry, there are also blind people interested in the same material.
 
@Shokhet Maybe, but how easy would it be if they wanted to gloss over that specific (large) portion of audio?
 
@Fred I don't think most blind users browse the web as audio, but would rather use a refreshable braille display, though I don't know all that much about it. You do raise a good point, though.
Does anyone know how the alt-text of an image appears to a blind person browsing the web?
 
Here's one e.g. for the alt-txt: סַנְהֶדְרִין,‬ ‫סַנְהֶדְרֵי‬
frequently (also plural) (συνέδριον - synédrion) Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jews; ס‫'‬ גדולה the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one members; ס‫'‬ קטנה the Small Sanhedrin, a judicial court of twenty-three.
@Shokhet Even so, might it be easier for a sighted person to quickly recognize whether they want to skip a large section?
@Fred (Of course, the current alt-txt preface would also be kept: "Entry in the Jastrow dictionary.")
 
6:15 AM
@Fred That's true, unless they're presented with an option to read, or ignore alt-text? ....I know one blind person, but he doesn't really use the internet all that much, so I can't really ask him.
@Fred That looks good.
 
6:33 AM
@Shokhet Ok, well I'll leave things in your capable hands regarding what to do or how much to include where or whatever. :) TZT.
 
@Fred TZT.
 
7:15 AM
"f" is "feminine" in the Jastrow entry.
 
@msh210 I assume you meant to ping @Fred for that one? .....this makes sense, because "m" is also used in that dictionary, presumable to indicate "masculine":
(I needed that translation for this question)
...."m" and "f" don't have places in the list of abbreviations at the beginning of my dictionary, though "freq." means "frequently"
 
7:42 AM
@DoubleAA I know, i tried. Thanks.
@Shokhet I think it's rather standard.
 
@msh210 Oh, that's right. Thanks for mentioning that. I thought that at first, as that's the standard dictionary abbreviation. But then after looking up the a. v. fr. abbreviation, I somehow confused myself.
 
@msh210 Do we usually do that kind of surgery?
 
8:04 AM
@Scimonster I think so too, but Jastrow has a big list of Hebrew/Aramaic abbreviations, and another of English abbreviations that he uses in his dictionary. "f" and "m" didn't make that list, while "freq" did. Go figure.
@Scimonster You should have asked me -- I would have dug it up from MLH like I did for that original chat message.
@Shokhet Hence, "my dictionary" = the version of Jastrow that I'm looking at.
 
8:21 AM
@Shokhet I put out a general request.
yesterday, by Scimonster
Anyone know where that picture explaining don't vote based on score or user is?
 
@Scimonster Ah. I didn't see it; I wasn't in here very long on Friday. No worries.
....it's (very) late by me; TZT!
 
 
6 hours later…
2:51 PM
@IsaacMoses On mobile, I cannot see what you were replying to, but on the assumption that it was judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/53277/… : It's been proposed before, and I think performed. "Usually"? No.
 
 
4 hours later…
6:22 PM
0
Q: Best practices for long "alt" text and the vision-impaired?

Monica CellioOne of my communities is currently cleaning up its missing image alt text for the benefit of those who use the site with screen readers. We understand that the alt text we add will be offered in lieu of the image, and we know to omit it when it's totally redundant (image is pure decoration) and ...

 
7:03 PM
2 days ago, by Isaac Moses
Every once in a while, we should post another "Judaism + crazy creatures" question.
How much room for new stuff is there though?
I mean, once we cover the basics of what makes wacky things kosher or not, we're pretty much done.
That's why i have a new sci-fi + Judaism question idea.
 
7:40 PM
@MonicaCellio Thanks for asking that. I would have done that myself if I had the time, but I'm glad I didn't because you did a much better job of it than I did.
@Scimonster I had the start of an idea on faeries.....
2 days ago, by Shokhet
@IsaacMoses Do faeiries count as "מהלכי שתים"? ....a friend of mine is researching the halachic permissibility of cannibalism, out of morbid curiosity. You'd be surprised about some of the things ראשוננים say about it....faeries might actually be kosher.
 
@Shokhet thanks. I started to leave a note here saying "hey, does somebody want to ask UX about this?", then figured I may as well just do that instead.
 
@Shokhet Rishoninim? ;)
 
@Scimonster That's not the only typo in that message....I would actually spell the word as "fairy," but I just copied @IsaacMoses' spelling of the word, and messed that up as well.
 
Currently working on a Honey, I Shrunk the Kids in halacha question.
So no-one else take it!
 
Hi
Anyone got a spare 3 seconds please?
 
7:44 PM
@Scimonster thinking.....what kind of halacha applies to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids?
 
I'm stuck on doing a transcription of 3 seconds...my hearing must not be very good :( Could anyone please help?: picosong.com/LjL8
what I've got is: the ??? is there to rectify the person who's helping
 
@Shokhet Shiurim
@TimTimmy Hi there.
 
Hello
Could you lend me an ear please?
 
@Scimonster מלא לוגמו and stuff like that? Maybe אמה, according to R Moshe?
 
@TimTimmy Can't make out a word of it, sorry.
 
7:46 PM
@TimTimmy I wish I could....I'm going to have to leave very soon, though. If it hasn't been taken care of later, I'd be glad to.
 
Thanks for the interest though
 
@TimTimmy Just curious, any reason you brought that here?
 
I thought why not join in with people who are already chatting and happy to give a helping hand!
 
0
Q: Would halachic units be shrunk if a person was (Honey, I Shrunk the Kids-style)?

ScimonsterIn the classic move Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and its sequels, people get shrunk down to 1/264th of their normal size. So, a person is around 1/4 of an inch tall. If such a thing were even possible, would there be any changes in size requirements for him? Some examples: A Chanukiah has to be h...

 
I can't use the speakers on my computer at the moment, nor do I have headphones...but the title of that recording was in French (I think). You might get better results asking in the French.se chat room
@Scimonster I'm tempted to VTC that one as too broad.....
 
7:51 PM
@Shokhet Rather dead chat room. (@TimTimmy)
@Shokhet Why? It seems quite specific to me.
 
@Scimonster That's true.
@Scimonster Let's say I know something about the halachos for midgets in hilchos Shabbos; I might not know anything about hilchos brachos. ....IAE, I think it's probably fine.
 
5
Q: What to do when you only have a partial answer

ShokhetMany times I find myself with relevant, sourced information when I look at a question, but won't have a complete answer. For example, in this recent question, the question asked for when large-scale slaughterhouses became common practice, and rabbinical positions for and against them. I know exac...

 
@Scimonster Also true.
 
The closevotes here look backwards now. :P
 
@Scimonster I know. I've even spotted some that have two (possible three, I don't recall) mods as close-voters, but not the last one. IINM @HodofHod was a mod at one point.
Gotta go; TZT!
 
7:58 PM
@Shokhet The fact that he has a Constable badge is pretty good indication.
Jan 27 at 22:55, by Double AA
This is bizarre: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/posts/15082/revisions Why wasn't Abby's vote binding?
 

« first day (1362 days earlier)      last day (1887 days later) »