this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
171 points (97.8% liked)

Programming

17524 readers
312 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Will accessibility tools that rely on automating input to the browser cause it to become untrusted? Will it affect extensions? The spec does currently specify a carveout for browser modifications and extensions, but those can make automating interactions with a website trivial. So, either the spec is useless or restrictions will eventually be applied there too.

all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AnonymousLlama@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Firefox team responded saying that it's an awful idea and that plenty of people rely on being able to appear human, for example screen readers who need to interact as a human would but then translates it into a format their users can understand.

These propositions are just full of drawbacks for the user, the user actually gains nothing at all. Let's hope this rubbish doesn't take a foothold.

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 9 points 1 year ago

The biggest issue I see is not being able to block malicious scripts from running. An all or nothing approach is a terrible terrible idea.

[–] exussum@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if you were to diminish any valid reasons to not add this DRM feature, what are the actual reasons they think are pro consumer?

[–] odium@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Harder for scammers/hackers iirc.

But this also makes it harder for devs to run tests.

[–] exussum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] odium@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Saw some Google bootlicker on GitHub issues talking about how the policy will prevent a lot of automated stuff including bots and many hacker tools.

[–] Qualanqui 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just goes to show, google is an ad company first and foremost and they're in the process of cutting out any competition to their dominance.

Props too to Vivaldi for blowing the whistle as they have access to all the upcoming chromium builds being a fork.

[–] sanpo@sopuli.xyz 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn't blow any whistles, the proposal was public and lots of people spoke out against it already.

Besides, I like Vivaldi, but they're part of the problem.
The only reason this discussion is happening is because everyone and their grandma decided it's a great idea to re-skin a browser built by an ad-company and expect them not to abuse their position.

[–] Qualanqui 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you, I'd love to live in the world where Vivaldi chose Gecko instead of Chromium, but we've only got the cards we've been dealt so at least the Vivaldi team are always very vocal about this and have always said they're going to work around Google's more draconian decisions.

[–] Trarmp@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

I just want WebKit for windows :(

It has a bunch of fine browsers on Linux, why isn’t there a decent GTK port for windows?

[–] ruffsl@programming.dev 18 points 1 year ago

Related:

[–] PlatypusXray@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)