Programming

423 readers

2 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

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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

114

Unpacking Google’s new “dangerous” Web-Environment-Integrity specification (vivaldi.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ruffsl@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AnonymousLlama@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 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 10 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.