Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?
Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you might find out whattoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
you're talking about first? You opine that if browser makers knew what
we needed access to, they could give us that, and then screen readers
wouldn't have to do this unsecure stuff. Yeah, I agree with that, and so
do the folks at Mozilla. Here's somebody claiming screen readers should
do exactly what you said they should, again, since you apparently didn't
read it the first time.
That's literally exactly what you just said, the browser gives the
screen reader the information it needs. Do you think such a change will
happen instantaneously or something? You then further opine about
protecting idiots from "their own bad practices". Sure, it's possible
that somebody could do the classic click on a link from an email and
suffer a code injection attack. But the more problematic thing has
nothing whatsoever to do with anybody's "bad practices".
It goes like this. I think to myself, "self, let's go check the news".
So I fire up my trusty browser and go to CNN or the BBC or wherever the
hell people go for news these days. Oh look! Suddenly my browser's
freaking out and I just had financial information stolen from my system.
Surely I was the idiot for going to the CNN, right? Nope, because that
site got hacked, I had no way of knowing that, and I got hit with a code
injection attack. That's precisely the sort of thing the new Firefox is
trying to have better security against.
By your reasoning, I should turn off any antivirus programs I'm running
and go to any website I please, however bad it might look, because
you're never going to have perfect security, so why even bother? I get
that it's really frustrating that the new Firefox doesn't work for you,
I really do. But that doesn't change the fact that A., Firefox is more
secure, and B., they're literally trying to do exactly what you said
they should do in terms of accessibility, figure out what a screen
reader needs and giving it access to that information. I mean like they
are literally saying "we know this might break some things for a bit,
but we really are trying to get to better security and better
accessibility in the end, so please be patient with us".
And you literally agree with what they're intending to do when it comes
to providing accessibility, because you said it's what they should have
been doing in the first place. So why in the world are you doing nothing
but complaining, now that they're saying they have the stuff they need
to create this better form of accessibility, and they're starting to do
so? Because again, BOTH major screen readers warned everybody in advance
and gave an accessible version of the exact same browser to use. Plus as
people on this list have mentioned and experimented with, we've got two
other largely accessible browsers at our immediate disposal.
They're literally trying to make the changes you claim they should make,
and all you've been doing for the last two or three weeks is complaining
about it. They are actually trying to do the thing you think is better
for us, and all you've been doing is pissing and moaning about how we're
second class citizens and nobody cares about us poor poor blind folks!
And yes, I know I'm running this into the ground, but it's for a reason.
This is something that, however immediately painful, and it shouldn't be
that painful because you have browser choices, is something that's
intended to make the browser better for everybody, and yes that includes
us. Not only are they saying there's now a better way to do
accessibility and we're going to do that, you agree with them and think
it's the way they should have been using all along.
They couldn't, and now they can, so that's what they want to do, and it
will be, again, better for everybody. I mean it is literally the exact
opposite of treating us as second class citizens, it's saying we have a
technology we didn't have, it's better for you, give us some time to
implement it. The whole point is that we'll get improved accessibility.
How in the world is that giving us "the last dregs of the cup of tea"?
I'm sorry if this comes off like I'm picking on you or attacking you,
I'm honestly not trying to do that. I'm just honestly baffled. We've had
the reasons in front of us for about the past month about how this will
improve both accessibility and security, that's the end-game they're
trying to reach. So I just do not comprehend the whole "everybody hates
us and ignores us and we're second class citizens and I guess we're
lucky to have anything at all no no squire a stale crust of bread will
be fine for my single daily meal!" vibe you've got going on here. Had
the security change been made and then we had no mention of
accessibility whatsoever, I'd kind of see your point I guess. But that's
just not what happened at all. It looks to me like this was prepared for
in advance, hence the posts about Firefox ESR, and that the intent is to
offer a stronger path for accessibility going forward, now that the
technology has changed to allow it.
On 11/15/2017 2:03, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Its no less secure today than yesterday. There are people out there