newpapers claim it's republishing their stuff with Brave's ads. Brave says: "If it were the case that Brave's browsers perform "republication", then so too does Safari's Reader mode. The same goes for any browser with an ad-blocker extension installed, or the Links text-only browser, or screen readers for the visually impaired."
I would use Brave if the micropayments thing worked. I don't want a subscription to any of the news orgs, but would gladly pay some cents per individual post I read.
In regards to the Brave stuff, I am surprised there isn't some form of copyright that is being broken with ad-removal in general, let alone replacing them with other ads.
It's like if someone were to replace physical ads with their own and then give then original advertiser a 55% cut of what they would've originally made.
the difference is-- these ads don't have malware (they do track so the ads can be sold to advertisers to target demographics, tho "anonymised and not stored (supposedly)), they don't inhibit page load and don't drain your mobile battery or kill your monthly mobile plan.
good to know. I know Firefox supported the Luminosity API long before any other browsers. Actually I think they are still the only one to support it… I love that API
I'd rather 1) not be tracked 2) not have my info stolen 3) not have malware installed on my machine and most importantly 4) be able to pay (with money, not data) for the content I consume
I think their point is that this is actually a data table and is an author error. The browsers are doing the right thing but there is an error in the content.
My former boss had a progressbar example (two divs, one moved inside the other + aria stuff) and mentioned in her notes that VO only read anything out if the element was focussed.
[marcysutton] Yes I am very bummed about substantial.com. It’s as if they never heard a word I said in the two years I worked there :( And to add insult to injury, they took down their entire blog including some of my most popular written content. I rescued that post on my website: https://marcysutton.com/how-i-audit-a-website-for-accessibility
[car]@michiel@jnurthen: For editorial comments in the ARIA docs, do you guys prefer to have Issues opened, or (if it's just simple stuff) Pull Requests? (I'm a github n00b, so I'm just trying to figure out "the best" way to do this)
[car] Already done. :) However, in the past few days, I opened some Issues with multiple editorial comments in them, and now that I've figured out (I think) how to do PR's, I can go back and submit some of those editorial comments as PR's. Would that be helpful?
[car] Ah, thanks for mentioning that. I noticed that PR #288 seems to have a whole bunch of stuff in one branch, and I kind of wondered if that was going to be "difficult" to merge.
going to also add the reverse and flag as a warning for any text smaller than the mean font size which IS marked up as a header.... obviously I'll have to exclude off-screen or small bounding box screen-reader targetted text or we'll get a bunch of false positives here
Gitter Channel Archive 19th of April 2016
