Topics

an add-on for a browser extension?

Christopher Pross
 

Hey guys,
at the moment, I write a add-on for the lastpass desktop app. Now I see that this app is only useable for premium users. If a NVDA-User uses lastpass free, he can only use the web-interface or the browser extensions. This browser extension is almost accessible, only the fault view, spezialy the interaction with the items to edit or copy username/password, is only reachable with an mouse hover. Very unconvortable... But I don't know, it would make sence to provide a appmodule / add-on, for that. Maybe, it would make the interaction easier, but infact I never seen a add-on for browser extensions.  I think, because this would be a appmodule for the browser (chrome.py, firefox.py), of course this would only affect the window of the add-on, but this is a very dirty way and I am very sure, that this will collide with eventually existing add-ons for the browser.
What are your opinions. Sorry, when this question is not right here, But I don't know, where to ask this.

all the best,
Christopher Proß

derek riemer
 

That's not doable currently You can do some things, but not everything. Using a browser extension to modify pages is usually how it's done, but that's probably not possible in another extension. You might be able to identify things with the treeInterceptor, and using the IAccessible2Attributes. Lastpass has ignored requests to fix a11y in the past, and they will continue using them until we hurt them by hitting them where it hurts, the wallet.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Christopher Pross <chpross42@...> wrote:
Hey guys,
at the moment, I write a add-on for the lastpass desktop app. Now I see that this app is only useable for premium users. If a NVDA-User uses lastpass free, he can only use the web-interface or the browser extensions. This browser extension is almost accessible, only the fault view, spezialy the interaction with the items to edit or copy username/password, is only reachable with an mouse hover. Very unconvortable... But I don't know, it would make sence to provide a appmodule / add-on, for that. Maybe, it would make the interaction easier, but infact I never seen a add-on for browser extensions.  I think, because this would be a appmodule for the browser (chrome.py, firefox.py), of course this would only affect the window of the add-on, but this is a very dirty way and I am very sure, that this will collide with eventually existing add-ons for the browser.
What are your opinions. Sorry, when this question is not right here, But I don't know, where to ask this.

all the best,
Christopher Proß



--
Derek Riemer
Improving the world one byte at a time!        ⠠⠊⠍⠏⠗⠕⠧⠬ ⠮ ⠸⠺ ⠐⠕ ⠃⠽⠞⠑ ⠁⠞ ⠁ ⠐⠞⠖
•    Accessibility enthusiast.
•    Proud user of the NVDA screen reader.
•    Open source enthusiast.
•    Skier.

•    Personal website: https://derekriemer.com




Andy B.
 

Hi,

I work extensively with treeInterceptor and browser objects from the NVDA side of things. First, NVDA only exposes objects and properties of objects it feels are relevant to client-side Python code. For example, it exposes the attributes of an html object such as class, name, id, and margins. Unfortunately, it doesn't expose things such as padding, border sizes and colors, and other mute points. NVDA only exposes a read-only version of the accessibility tree. Therefore, you can't modify it. The other thing to keep in mind is that NVDA provides a rendered manifestation of the browser's viewport, not the source itself. This means that if you want to manipulate h: pseudo classes or intercept the javascript onhover event, the browser will hide these from the end-user/client for security purposes. If your app uses Chrome/Firefox, it might be worth looking at building an extension directly for the browser instead of making an NVDA add-on.


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christopher Pross <chpross42@...> wrote:
Hey guys,
at the moment, I write a add-on for the lastpass desktop app. Now I see that this app is only useable for premium users. If a NVDA-User uses lastpass free, he can only use the web-interface or the browser extensions. This browser extension is almost accessible, only the fault view, spezialy the interaction with the items to edit or copy username/password, is only reachable with an mouse hover. Very unconvortable... But I don't know, it would make sence to provide a appmodule / add-on, for that. Maybe, it would make the interaction easier, but infact I never seen a add-on for browser extensions.  I think, because this would be a appmodule for the browser (chrome.py, firefox.py), of course this would only affect the window of the add-on, but this is a very dirty way and I am very sure, that this will collide with eventually existing add-ons for the browser.
What are your opinions. Sorry, when this question is not right here, But I don't know, where to ask this.

all the best,
Christopher Proß

Toni Barth
 

Hi,

whats the problem with supporting the now paid version of LastPass at all? Its not your fault that LastPass is paid, and there are multiple other add-ons for paid products like StationPlaylist after all as well, so just stick with it. It would be interesting to see how many people stick with the free-only version of LastPass anyway, there are multiple better and more accessible solutions for that, like KeePass. Its mainly ment to gain attraction and bring people to purchase the full subscription, so just support that one if anything at all.

Best Regards.

Toni Barth

Am 05.01.2020 um 01:01 schrieb Andy B.:

Hi,

I work extensively with treeInterceptor and browser objects from the NVDA side of things. First, NVDA only exposes objects and properties of objects it feels are relevant to client-side Python code. For example, it exposes the attributes of an html object such as class, name, id, and margins. Unfortunately, it doesn't expose things such as padding, border sizes and colors, and other mute points. NVDA only exposes a read-only version of the accessibility tree. Therefore, you can't modify it. The other thing to keep in mind is that NVDA provides a rendered manifestation of the browser's viewport, not the source itself. This means that if you want to manipulate h: pseudo classes or intercept the javascript onhover event, the browser will hide these from the end-user/client for security purposes. If your app uses Chrome/Firefox, it might be worth looking at building an extension directly for the browser instead of making an NVDA add-on.


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christopher Pross <chpross42@...> wrote:
Hey guys,
at the moment, I write a add-on for the lastpass desktop app. Now I see that this app is only useable for premium users. If a NVDA-User uses lastpass free, he can only use the web-interface or the browser extensions. This browser extension is almost accessible, only the fault view, spezialy the interaction with the items to edit or copy username/password, is only reachable with an mouse hover. Very unconvortable... But I don't know, it would make sence to provide a appmodule / add-on, for that. Maybe, it would make the interaction easier, but infact I never seen a add-on for browser extensions.  I think, because this would be a appmodule for the browser (chrome.py, firefox.py), of course this would only affect the window of the add-on, but this is a very dirty way and I am very sure, that this will collide with eventually existing add-ons for the browser.
What are your opinions. Sorry, when this question is not right here, But I don't know, where to ask this.

all the best,
Christopher Proß