1418
submitted 1 year ago by sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] raltoid@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They try to present it as "detecting abuse", but it's literally just "allow servers to block non-verified browers"(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).

And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don't even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).

[-] thespezfucker@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

i personally don't understand why companies overlook accessbility, is it to save profits?

[-] jumperalex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

why did you waste your time asking that question when you already knew the answer?

It's always the profits!!!

[-] Brahm1nmam 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I get it costs money to develop accessibility, but you can't rip off a blind man if he can't navigate your sight. I truly don't get it.

Edit: site, not sight

[-] jumperalex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I want to laugh but .. well .. I'm not crying YOU'RE CRYING

[-] Eranziel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They've simply run the numbers and decided it would cost more to support the blind man's access than they could get from plundering the blind man.

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1418 points (99.0% liked)

Firefox

17952 readers
377 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS