GUI Suggestions

[Tom T.]

CertPatrol's options need some improvement in regards to accessibility. I wish there was an e-mail address.

Try posting a review at the add-on's home page. The link to reviews [which looks like a button to me, laugh] is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... eviews/add.

If JAWS can read the rather faint white text on a light blue background, the box is labeled, "Write a review". You could also mention the lack of direct support by either e-mail or forum. They invite you instead to participate in live chat, but I don't know how well that works for you. If it isn't convenient, mention that in the review -- that overall, they don't seem to be thinking about accessibility issues.

Have you ever tried to use SkipCertError?

Never heard of it, but the "support site" for CertPatrol mentions it. http://patrol.psyced.org/

[Identities Infinite]

Must I register on Mozilla's add-on site if I want to write a review?

[dhouwn]

Yes.

[Identities Infinite]

Seems I already have on 02 September 2011. Now I am infuriated. The rating is required and I can not figure out how to do it because they are not links. I absolutely HATE the designers of this web site! I never became frustrated to this calibre over a web site before that I should be able to use like everybody else.

[Tom T.]

The Ratings area shows five stars. As the mouse pointer moves across them, it becomes the hand icon that we previously discussed, so that you can click on the first, second, etc. star, thus rating one, two ... up to the fifth star, a five-star review.

The code is:

Code: Select all

<form method="post" action="/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/add">
            <div style='display:none'><input type='hidden' name='csrfmiddlewaretoken' value='a675c67724faa79bfddcffc7d7da1bbb' /></div>
      <p><label for="id_body">Review:</label><textarea id="id_body" rows="3" cols="40" name="body"></textarea></p>

      <p><label for="id_rating">Rating:</label><select name="rating" id="id_rating">
<option value="1">1</option>
<option value="2">2</option>
<option value="3">3</option>
<option value="4">4</option>
<option value="5">5</option>
</select></p>
      <p><input type="submit" value="Submit review" ></p>
    </form>

So ask JAWS to look for "id=id_rating", then find the option value that corresponds to the desired rating. I understand that this may not work.

Please don't shoot the messenger, but only a very small percentage of the planet's population lives in your world, and of those who do, probably only a small portion are so adventuresome and determined as to learn how to use the Internet. So these site coders are not deliberately being mean to you; they JUST DON'T KNOW. They can't know unless you tell them. So tell them. Like you are doing here.

That is much more productive than hating people who have no idea why you hate them.

Old saying: "It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness." Unintentionally is more than metaphorical in this case, but the point is: you can light candles for yourself and for all other visually-impaired users by doing that advocacy of which you spoke early on, letting each site know what would be needed for accessibility. How else will they know? I didn't.

[Identities Infinite]

You are correct. I had to shut down JAWS and launch NVDA. For a free screen reader it sure works better than JAWS when reading clickable graphics like that [are they graphics?]. It must be a JAWS issue because I was able to publish a review for CertPatrol, a review for JSView and one for Navigational Sounds with no problem and give them their due ratings. Sorry about that; I just become frustrated when I have no more problem-solving avenues outside of JAWS. If I could somehow get ETI-Eloquence to work with NVDA I would probably use it just as much if not more than JAWS. I will now report this issue to Freedom Scientific so they can fix it.

[Tom T.]

Glad it worked. Now, wasn't that better than remaining annoyed? [friendly smile]

I had to shut down JAWS and launch NVDA. For a free screen reader it sure works better than JAWS when reading clickable graphics like that [are they graphics?].

Yes. They are five-pointed stars. This is as good a time to ask as any, and if it's not my business, or you wish to answer by private message, fine with either. But for better understanding: Have you ever been sighted, or was this congenital? You can understand how that helps me to imagine your frame of reference.

If I could somehow get ETI-Eloquence to work with NVDA I would probably use it just as much if not more than JAWS. I will now report this issue to Freedom Scientific so they can fix it.

Another proverb: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". Keep squeaking, and let these vendors know how to enhance their products.

You already know that many of the changes in the NoScript changelog came from user suggestions, including some of your own. Good developers treasure useful feedback. -- as opposed to rants, or just "This stinks", laugh.

[Identities Infinite]

Sure is. I should have tried NVDA sooner. My problem is I lack patience after so long and not just with material objects either.

[Tom T.]

My problem is I lack patience after so long and not just with material objects either.

I know what you mean. Need I say more? [wink]

Okay, a bit more, but *only* just on site design. As a user, poor site design is irritating; as a support tech, finding out that what's reported to be a NoScript issue is just poor site design has me shaking my head. Finding actual insecure design, which we have at times... Don't know if you're curious, but here's one such thread: http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7971

You should probably skip a lot of the off-topic posts by a couple of different users named "guest". The pertinent parts are OP's problem and Guardian's and my responses.
You'll know what I mean, and why we lose patience with incompetent site designers -- especially for *banks*.

[Identities Infinite]

Wow that was a huge mistake on the banque's part. I would rather go to the banque than disable that POST-to-GET request feature. I would never do online banquing regardless but that is just me.

What does OP, SVC, IMHO and any other abbreviations precluding NS mean? Those were the parts with which I had trouble understanding besides the user's choice of direction.

[Tom T.]

I would never do online banquing regardless but that is just me.

Wise. Trusting one's bank account to a screen-reader.... it's hard enough for sighted users to avoid scams. Asking a reader program to distinguish real from fake, etc... .Science isn't that far advanced yet.

What does OP SVC, IMHO and any other abbreviations precluding NS mean?

Sorry about that; didn't know that the thread would be read by a bot some day [friendly smile]
OP = Original Post or Original Poster. The person who started the topic.
IMHO = more Web politeness. In My Humble Opinion. A prefix to avoid sounding arrogant or pedantic when making a categorical, pedantic, or opinionated statement.

Cust. Svc. = Customer Service. I made that up on the spot, as OP (remember who that is? wink) and I were already talking about bank customer service representatives and departments, so I figured it was evident (to him) from the context.

Coders use camelcase, abbreviations, and acronyms partly because memory used to be scarce and expensive, and mostly to save themselves keystrokes and footprint. (I've added several environment variables to my Windows machine, to save characters in writing DOS batch scripts.) Text messagers, Instant Messagers, and those who use Twitter use the same for speed, brevity, cost, and in the case of Twitter, there's a maximum of 140 characters per message. I use them if and when I think the meaning is clear, because I'm not a good typist and tend to prolixity. [wink]. Abbreviating = more users can be helped in a given time period.

Any others that you and JAWS don't recognize, just ask.