# In reply to: ...
As I've written before, I think mass adoption of #indieweb technologies (at least in their current guise) is only likely to happen by stealth. There needs to be a big player willing to dip their toes in the water and really drive things forward in a way that is invisible to end users.
Imagine if Twitter or Facebook natively included support. There would be no need for the various "plumbing" efforts, like Bridgy, that seek to join certain parts of the web together.
But I can't see that happening. The big players are referred to as silos for a reason.
Micro.blog is built with the indieweb principles in mind (to a degree) but it relies on people wanting to own a blog of some description. And most don't.
But this is jumping ahead.
The next wave of indieweb users after the developers, otherwise known as Generation 2 (ambiguously labelled as "Journalists and Bloggers") is expected to carry the torch but I can't get away from a confused picture.
The definition of gen 2 and the expectations of its knowledge don't entirely sit well with me - that anticipated knowledge described as:
Understands cPanel, Softaculous, Fantastico, etc. has a domain name and blog.
Journalists and bloggers is vague, too wide, so the target has to be the skillset rather than the definition.
It is intended for each generation to bridge the gap to the next but I don't see that happening. Gen 2 can publicise the indieweb but, until the tools are a lot simpler, there will not be sufficient uptake to make a compelling case.
The indieweb will still be viewed as the domain of elitest geeks speaking in jargon.
Simplicity is key: themes that support the relevant markup thus negating the need for manual tweaking; a simplified plugin structure with more clearly defined roles and descriptions; better explanation of what it all does without the assumption, and seeming arrogance, that this is just "better."
Better is incredibly subjective.
Stability and predictability are paramount. Things must "just work" rather than it being a case of markup roulette.
Do A to get B, reliably and repeatedly.
Part of the indieweb principle is focusing on the experience rather than the technology so that the same result can be achieved in different ways. But, when a number of the indieweb components are working their way through the W3C standards process, how can it not be about the technology.
Standardisation leads to adoption and most won't invest the time and effort required until doing A always gives us B. The trade-off won't be worth it.
Everyone having to write their own implementation is not a viable long term solution.
There will be an element of choice but this will be merely functional and cosmetic: what subset of features do I want to use and how do I want to display them?