Re: Firefox 57 etc


Gene
 

All the update options are obvious.  There is an automatically update option, an option to notify you when an update is available and an option to never update.  I don't know if you are saying not all the update options are obviouls or not all the options available in the entire options dialog are obvious.
 
If somene doesn't know how or has problems finding the update settings, how to find them can be explained and once explained, it shouldn't be difficult to find them.  But remopving the actual service itself is a really terrible idea.
 
Gene

Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc

That is a bit of a sledgehammer way. You can set it in the options, but
quite what all the choices do is not instantly obvious, except the one to
say never update of course!
 Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "zahra" <nasrinkhaksar3@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc


just delete maintainance service in your control panel, i mean
uninstall it and go to options, advance, update and set your desires.

On 11/6/17, Sharni-Lee Ward <sharni-lee.ward@...> wrote:
> How can I make sure Firefox won't update? I don't want my go-to browser
> to be unusable!
>
>
> On 6/11/2017 10:17 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I thought that was why there were beta versions before the main
>> release, to get these issues ironed out in the first place?
>> At 07:47 PM 11/5/2017, you wrote:
>>> Well how does one actually get it to work then, I cannot get to
>>> anything I can read in order to check if the option is set wrongly, I
>>> was under the impression that it was supposed to be off by default.
>>> this has not been my experience, either that or there are more
>>> serious issues on the 32 bit version or it has problems in windows 7.
>>> No My thrust and that of several others I know is that it has been
>>> sprung on people. IE if there was a version of firefox that by
>>> default could not be used by the sighted it would never leave the
>>> developers.
>>> My point is that I'm sick and tired of being a second class citizen
>>> simply because I'm blind, and its about time these people got their
>>> fingers out of their ears or wherever they put them, not wanting to
>>> be rude and embraced accessibility at the start of a new concept not
>>> half way through it.
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> bglists@...
>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>> in the display name field.
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Isige" <gwynn@...>
>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies, I misunderstood your rhetoric comment. That's what comes
>>> of trying to do two things at once. Also to be clear, I'm not saying we
>>> shouldn't question changes. I think it's fine and valuable to ask what
>>> changes are being made and why they're being made. But there are some
>>> people who seem to assume they're almost always bad and are the start
>>> down a path for changes for the worst, it seems to me, and that's what I
>>> object to. As you say, and a few others have reported this here as well,
>>> the new Firefox with the option set correctly seems to be mostly fine,
>>> if slow. And if not, as you've also pointed out, we have other browsers
>>> to use until it gets straightened out.
>>>
>>>
>>> I also think it's valuable to point out that these aren't ham-fisted
>>> sledgehammer changes, they are perhaps fairly large changes sure, but
>>> they're not being done just because, they're being done for a perfectly
>>> valid security reason. I figured I'd better provide examples instead of
>>> just telling people it's an issue, now we can all see the potential
>>> problems with code injection. I should add, I'm really glad the new
>>> update is mostly fine, though I might use the extended release myself. I
>>> use Firefox as my daily browser and haven't really found any of the
>>> others to my liking for various reasons, though I need to play with them
>>> some more because of course accessibility keeps improving for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Man I remember the days of IE 6 or 7 when JFW's Firefox support wasn't
>>> that great, and IE updated and JFW hadn't caught up yet. Called tech
>>> support and they insisted I couldn't be running the new version of IE
>>> because the new version of IE didn't work with JFW. At least we've got
>>> some pretty decent alternatives nowadays. I'm not even sure if Firefox
>>> was supported yet, it was ages ago when this happened, but I remember I
>>> had all kinds of issues browsing until it got updated eventually. And
>>> that line will stick in my head forever, "you can't be running that",
>>> I'm like "dude it's right here on my machine"! I think I even cranked
>>> speech up over the speakers and made it read the version number. Fun
>>> times!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/4/2017 23:45, Ron Canazzi wrote:
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boy, you really like to press home a point. I didn't fundamentally
>>>> disagree with you on any of that. In fact, according to beta testers,
>>>> Firefox 57 without the check box checked isn't very much different
>>>> than earlier versions. In addition, I have begun to use Edge for many
>>>> things. The only major issue I see with Edge and NVDA is it is a bit
>>>> erratic in forms mode. For example on the Send Space page where you
>>>> have to click on buttons and make descriptive editions if desired,
>>>> NVDA keeps slipping in and out of forms mode. I bet they nail this one
>>>> down either later this year or early next year. I can use Edge for
>>>> anything now including forms and similar editable pages--with some
>>>> difficulty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I only objected to your wholesale condemnation of all blind people who
>>>> raised questions about changes in accessibility.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/4/2017 9:57 PM, John Isige wrote:
>>>>> Ah. Rhetoric. Like this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blog.trendmicro.com/mozilla-firefox-exploit-enlists-pcs-advanced-botnet/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.welivesecurity.com/2015/08/11/firefox-under-fire-anatomy-of-latest-0-day-attack/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason you're not hacked any more than other people is because
>>>>> Firefox updates for security, i.e. the very thing people are
>>>>> complaining
>>>>> about now because it's updating in a way that happens to mess with
>>>>> screen readers. It's true that, so far as I know, neither of these
>>>>> injection attacks are the kind of code injection screen readers do.
>>>>> That's because screen readers are local though and not using something
>>>>> like JavaScript, but that's about the only difference. And you should
>>>>> particularly note from the second link that the particular code
>>>>> injection attack being discussed there allows reading and writing of
>>>>> local files as well as uploading them. Have a credit card number
>>>>> written
>>>>> down somewhere for easy access? Get infected by that thing and it
>>>>> could
>>>>> very well be uploaded to a site for somebody else to try and use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is, injection attacks happen, they're bad, and this is
>>>>> another
>>>>> way to try and stop them. There's a real purpose to this change,
>>>>> whether
>>>>> or not anybody happens to like or agree with it. It's not just
>>>>> rhetoric,
>>>>> there are real examples of it, as I've just demonstrated. There's
>>>>> also a
>>>>> way for screen readers to deal with browsers that doesn't involve code
>>>>> injection, I believe this is how NVDA deals with Microsoft Edge
>>>>> because
>>>>> Edge doesn't allow code injection. That's also part of why everybody's
>>>>> still working on Edge accessibility, sure, that way doesn't
>>>>> materialize
>>>>> overnight, it has to be implemented and I'm sure issues have to be
>>>>> worked out with it, e.g. if a browser needs to expose certain
>>>>> things it
>>>>> doesn't currently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I get that the change Firefox is making isn't ideal for us, I'm just
>>>>> saying, there's a reason for it, and there are a lot of
>>>>> alternatives to
>>>>> using the new Firefox, including an older accessible version of
>>>>> Firefox
>>>>> if you don't feel like trying to change browsers and use Chrome or
>>>>> Edge
>>>>> until better accessibility for the new version of Firefox is worked
>>>>> out.
>>>>> There's no reason to assume that the sky is falling and that nothing
>>>>> will ever get better because clearly, Firefox is going down the
>>>>> road of
>>>>> hating blind people and ignoring them entirely and thus we're all
>>>>> crewed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/4/2017 19:13, Ron Canazzi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides all that rhetoric, Mozilla has set the 'disable all
>>>>>> accessibility features' item to unchecked by default. As long as you
>>>>>> don't turn it on by accident, there shouldn't be any problem. I don't
>>>>>> know what the chance of you getting infected or hacked by
>>>>>> something is
>>>>>> when this item is turned off, but I would imagine it isn't very high
>>>>>> because I don't see any greater number of blind people getting hacked
>>>>>> proportionately than sighted folks. Still there is an issue with
>>>>>> security now of days and it probably won't get any better for years.
>>>>>> Some people have already tested 57 with screen readers and were
>>>>>> careful not to check the box and things seem reasonably good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/4/2017 6:08 PM, John Isige wrote:
>>>>>>> If you'd read all of the stuff in Freedom Scientific's post, you
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have seen this link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Code injection is a horrible idea from a security standpoint and
>>>>>>> also a
>>>>>>> coding one. It was something that was necessary back in the day, but
>>>>>>> probably isn't anymore. So that was a change that probably should
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> happened long before now anyway. It makes sense as a change and
>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>> going to cause this issue whenever it happened. Not only do we have
>>>>>>> several accessible browsers to choose from, we have an accessible
>>>>>>> version of the one with the problem and one assumes work will be
>>>>>>> done to
>>>>>>> make the current version accessible. Seriously, do you people do
>>>>>>> anything other than bitch about stuff? I'm beginning to wonder. I
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> that the transition is annoying, sure. but some times there are
>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> good reasons to change things, however annoying the transition
>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>> to be, and honestly, this one isn't all that bad in the grand
>>>>>>> scheme of
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/4/2017 4:14, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
>>>>>>>> Indeed, However I am critical of Mozillas handling of this. Its not
>>>>>>>> often that the makers of Jaws put up a page about the pitfalls and
>>>>>>>> also criticise a particular company for being unthinking about
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> policy toward the VI community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let us hope that somebody in the management at that organisation
>>>>>>>> takes
>>>>>>>> us more seriously, however I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> if jamie working for them will help much if the culture is going
>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>> the road toward making all software inaccessible to stop
>>>>>>>> hacking. He
>>>>>>>> is probably not the most tactful person in the world as indeed
>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>> am I. I can now afford to grow old disgracefully. Age has its
>>>>>>>> advantages as history does tend to repeat itself and we have all
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> here before, sadly.
>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "никиÑ,а Ñ,аÑ?Ð°Ñ Ð¾Ð²"
>>>>>>>> <ntarasov29@...>
>>>>>>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 6:41 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello. I don't think it's worth installing Mozila 57 until she's
>>>>>>>> fully
>>>>>>>> available to NVDA.
>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,пÑ?авлено из ÐYоÑ?Ñ,Ñ< длѠ Windows 10
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
>>>>>>>> ÐzÑ,пÑ?авлено: 3 Ð½Ð¾Ñ Ð±Ñ?Ñ  2017 г. в 21:17
>>>>>>>> ÐsомÑf: nvda@nvda.groups.io
>>>>>>>> Тема: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I saw a message on the issues list from James, about some
>>>>>>>> fixing
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> version 58, so maybe it will get resolved from the currently
>>>>>>>> unusable
>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> Its new users of any screenreader I feel sorry for, especially
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> its a
>>>>>>>> shared machine and the sighted member just lets firefox update.
>>>>>>>> There are a couple of other issues. It disabled both my add ons,
>>>>>>>> navigational sounds and Ublock Origin ad blocker and even when I
>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> version 52 back on I had to re download both add ons and install
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>> Not only that but nvda after the update could not read the
>>>>>>>> screen of
>>>>>>>> the add
>>>>>>>> ons manager, I had to exit firefox completely and go back in
>>>>>>>> again to
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> if they had installed correctly, I'm sure this was not the case
>>>>>>>> prior
>>>>>>>> to up
>>>>>>>> and down dating the version I had, which was 55. How also does one
>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>> 52 to
>>>>>>>> get security updates without letting it update to 57 as I see it
>>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> till I set updates to no, ie not recommended.
>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Mendoza"
>>>>>>>> <lowvisiontek@...>
>>>>>>>> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:31 AM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nvda] Firefox 57 etc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have the same issue on the other machine, and that is the reason
>>>>>>>>> why I
>>>>>>>>> keep to shift instead to use the Firefox ESR version 52 but for
>>>>>>>>> now I
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> stick to this version because there is likely more stable in
>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>> and never has a problem. And, once the issue has fix maybe I
>>>>>>>>> could go
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> to use and test it again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Robert Mendoza
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2017 6:00 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> With regard to this version of Firefox, and in addition to what
>>>>>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>>>>> posted about it. Here is what me acting as the average unaware
>>>>>>>>>> updater
>>>>>>>>>> found.
>>>>>>>>>> After installation only the menus work, no content on the page is
>>>>>>>>>> readable, you cannot go into any browse or focus mode. You just
>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>> unknown.
>>>>>>>>>> Now there may well be some kind of setting that can be altered,
>>>>>>>>>> I do
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> know, to achieve what he got, slow but functioning. I could not
>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> option for this. Not only that but it seemed to lose almost half
>>>>>>>>>> of my
>>>>>>>>>> bookmarks as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So unless they fix this on the release version anyone trying
>>>>>>>>>> to use
>>>>>>>>>> Firefox 57 when it comes out with the latest version of nvda,
>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>> am up
>>>>>>>>>> to date with the master branch here, will not be able to do so
>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>> they know how to make it work.
>>>>>>>>>> If these people are employees then they will probably need the
>>>>>>>>>> permission
>>>>>>>>>> of an admin to reinstall a version like 55, and turn off auto
>>>>>>>>>> updates. I
>>>>>>>>>> have reinstalled 52 in actual fact and got my bookmarks back as
>>>>>>>>>> well as
>>>>>>>>>> functionality. To my mind the makers of Firefox at the current
>>>>>>>>>> state of
>>>>>>>>>> play should be able to see if screenreading software is on a
>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>> similar way to Adobe reader or Jarte does, and prevent it from
>>>>>>>>>> updating
>>>>>>>>>> to an unworkable version.
>>>>>>>>>> I cannot understand why they have not done this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone care to comment?
>>>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bglists@...
>>>>>>>>>> Sent via blueyonder.
>>>>>>>>>> Please address personal email to:-
>>>>>>>>>> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
>>>>>>>>>> in the display name field.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the entire creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration from prophet Mohammad is:
indeed, imam husayn is the beacon of guidance and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
www.al-islam.org





Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.