Re: firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Brian's Mail list account
 

What you don't do of course is just arbitrarily remove what already works, though do you.
I'll just invent a square wheel but its not rolling very well yet so you will have to sait till we file the corners off a bit!
remember I'm coming at this with personal experience of this new version ovlayed on windows 7 64 bit but the 32 bit version of quantum and it just sits there with its menu bar working and little else I take as I find and although some here find it works after several tries I say its not working here when quite plainly the old version still does. end of story.
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: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you might find out what
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.


https://www.marcozehe.de/2017/09/29/rethinking-web-accessibility-on-windows/


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
who will find a way to hack into everything. The game everyone is
playing to try to close every conceivable loop hole or way to exploit
windows and other systems will carry on no matter what of course.
Unfortunately if correct checks ad balances were carried out in the
code to see if it really is a screenreader then why worry? In my view
some of the dirty ways screenreaders have to use to get proper access
to the data point toward those designing APIs for screenreader use as
poor at their job. No hooking in and fiddling should be needed if they
knew what we needed access to in a secure way.Sadly the world does not
revolve around minority users and so we get the last dregs of the cup
of tea. Protecting idiots from their own bad practices is more
important. users need to actually learn to be more careful and stop
trying to pretend the world on line is more safe than off. There are
some areas of town I'd not go after dark, and I do not expect a line
of police there to stop me being foolish enough to do it.
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shaun Everiss" <sm.everiss@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well if it comes to that, then as a blind person I will have to use
an unsecured brouser.

Firefox 56 with noscript can be secure enough its a pitty that it
will be not secure but well.

Lets hope that both makers and access tech upgrades to the new
technologies and can use them.

Chrome is allready using web extentions the only issue I have with
chrome are some dialogs for their security screens.

I also don't care for the multiple clickables meaning I have to just
not do anything about that.




On 15/11/2017 7:19 a.m., Gene wrote:
It isn't just a question of security and I don't know enough about
the technical aspects of security to comment on that regarding
screen-readers.

But the statement from Mozilla, reproduced in Marco's Accessibility
Blog, makes it clear that many changes are to deal efficiently with
web pages that are increasingly interactive and complex. An
important reason changes are being made regarding accessibility is
because of the changes in web page design that have and are
occurring as the Internet takes on more complex functions. Indeed,
it looks to me as though Chrome will have to do the same sorts of
things at some point and that one reason Edge was inaccessible after
its release is because these sorts of changes are already built into
the browser, although someone who knows more than my very slight bit
of reading on the subject I did may correct or modify what I'm saying.

Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Shaun Everiss
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Well for security reasons you may have to but to be honest, I agree,
the
new firefox engine secure as it is means a lot of stuff we are used to
is gone and a few more niggles.

I'd actually prefur if they just kept 56.x secured as it is.

Chrome was the quickest way for me to stay secure and in business.

However if I didn't care firefox 56 would have been what I do.

Ofcause if I could fine a way without doodling with complex addons to
make my ff 52 broadcast a firefox 56 or higher on some sites then I'd
have no issue with it.

I still prefur firefox to chrome for its ease of use but they are going
to make it newer so.

To be honest if mozilla do what they say they are doing I do hope
something comes up next year, if firefox gets better then maybe I
switch
back to firefox.




On 14/11/2017 10:11 p.m., Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
wrote:
Well the beta I tried simply refused to say anything but unknown on
any page, though most of the menus still worked.

I'm not inclined to update since I use the sound, particularly the one
when a page has fully loaded and the one that tells me a link has in
fact activated and of course download complete


I have seen elsewhere where people think these sounds are pointless. I
dispute this as everyone is different and I really only use browsers
where I can actually hear that things are going on. for example I've
always noticed that screenreaders sometimes do not figure out the page
has loaded, but navigational sounds does and hence allows me to re
focus the screenreader.
Also I would not know if a download had completed if the download pane
was hidden without a sound.
Some links click but clickables do not so sometimes you can figure out
what is which sort of link on a page this way. In a way it would be
even better if button link and clickable had different sounds to save
one getting confused.

I think the list of things some of us want in a browser is obviously
going to be different to what the sighted want, so one will really
need somebody at Mozilla etc to write blind specific add ons for a
browser.
Its far easier when trying to teach somebody how to use a browser to
be able to say, if you do not hear x then its not worked.
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shaun Everiss"
<sm.everiss@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:42 PM
Subject: [nvda] firefox what was the fuss exactly?


Hi.

Well While brousing firefox ftp today I decided to try firefox 57 as
it was on releases today.

What exactly was the fuss?

Firefox interface loads fast, no lag, but I havn't tried big sites
maybe a couple seconds for audiogames forum.

Addons, noscript, aparently this will not work till actual release of
firefox.

Navigational sounds.

I am trying to find a replacement, the author of this said that
because the new interface doesn't allow for registry access one can't
get the list of events to do things with.

I tried 3 of them so far.

Notification sound, noise and download sound.

Download sound has no options or rather any way I can configure it to
suit.

Noise has options but there are no default events set and I tried to
add what I wanted and define its sounds but I can't set values and
going to its website found that while there is a web version all
features are basically not there.

Notification sound is another, but its got no options screen.

Something like noise would be fine if it had an default event list
which just used the windows schemes directly to the files etc.

I only need web navigation start and end, and download complete as a
start.

If there was a way I could easily add events, or something that would
be good but I'd like a list for beginners I could import.

Over those though, I did notice and turn on the extra privacy
protection, I have left active the unwanted software protection but I
heard from some that this can cause problems.

I also read the article about accessibility services and how they can
be misused.

It does say if you have a compatible jaws or nvda active on your
system that you should leave this active.

This is interesting, dolphin stuff is not on this list it makes me
wander, while I do use dolphin stuff myself for things their web
stuff is only for ie and ie 6-8 mainly.

Still its an observation only.

I must say off the bat what I really like about firefox are the easy
option layouts, I just wish there was a way to extend them to well
have extras for addons rather than mucking about with the manager.

I do like the fact you can have arrow navigation on.

I did get noscript revived but when I hit a site with scripts on it
never actually notified me at all.

I guess I have to fiddle with it, I do hope thatnoscript does go out
and get released.

Today is the 14th in nz and tomorrow it will be 14th in us and so, I
am probably going to have to keep firefox 57 loaded though I am
tempted to drop back to 56.02 for now and get my sounds back.






.





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