Try launching the instance of Chrome with `--disable-web-security` and `--disable-features=IsolateOrigins,site-per-process` options. I use these when launching Chrome via Playwright, and CAPTCHAs seemed to work fine several months ago.
The live demo[1] is completely unusable for people relying on assistive technology like screen readers and speech recognition, plus anyone using alternative input modalities like the keyboard. Do you have accessibility on your roadmap, to ensure that you're not encouraging users of your library to exclude a large percentage of the world's population?
Thanks for pointing out the accessibility issue. DFlex stands for a better user experience that includes of course adding accessibility to the main mechanism. At least the essential one. But at this moment, the project is still in development mode and many things need to improve including accessibility.
Do you know what doesn't matter? Articles about whether commit messages do or don't. What matters is the art of documenting things, somewhere, and that place should be the one that works for your team. If it's commit messages today, great. If that changes in the future, great. If it's somewhere else entirely already, also fine.
> nobody wanted to be the first person to leave the office, even on Friday.
This doesn't sound like a healthy symptom of a positive workplace culture. I guarantee that for some people, this perspective could be flipped on its head, and rephrased as a fear of being seen as the first person to leave. Other parts of the article reaffirm that, e.g.:
> My heart would beat out of my chest before heading into an exec review.
> Once, my manager asked me to reconsider the vacation I had been planning because my team needed me. “If you go, who will cover your work?”
If this is what gets your juices flowing right now, good for you. But personally? I work hard, hard enough to justify a vacation without the accompanying guilt trip, and with sufficient diligence to make a difference and explain my decisions to leadership. Then I go home.
They do, accessibility being one of them. Rendering math in the way you describe makes it difficult, or impossible, to understand for all sorts of audiences, including those relying on screen reading software.
> All4 is one of the buggiest platforms of all of the big channels.
Interesting viewpoint. While using the service on iOS, with an active ad-free subscription, I haven't noticed any of the issues you mention. Other than sponsorship unfortunately still being required for a small subset of programming. But other than that, the app has been a pleasure to use, far more so than the streaming app from Channel 5 which seeks my position each time I press the Pause button. I now generally rate the UX of All4 above the BBC iPlayer, which was the gold standard for a while.
> I will often get a suggestion on how to fix an issue, fix it, and then someone else will test my fix and give me a totally different suggestion on how to fix it. It's infuriating.
Polite indication that this is a problem with your organisation, not accessibility or accessibility work. The same issues can occur with design and other areas where everybody and their grandmother has an opinion; it's up to a good org to manage all of those opinions and expertise in an appropriate fashion. If they aren't, and this is making it harder for you to create accessible experiences, you should raise it with someone.
I dunno. I agree this work is important, but I also find it boring and frustrating. Its like adding logging, plumbing configs, etc. Obviously it has to happen, but at least for me it's neither interesting nor exciting.
That's called being a professional. Engineers create useful and rigorous systems. What other professions get to complain about having to do the "unfun" parts? The world runs on software. I'm unhappy with the idea that the software running the world is just built according to what some people find fun.
Actual engineering professionals spend their time making sure systems are safe and reliable. Website "engineering" "professionals" spend their time doing anti-utilitarian make-work to fend off lawsuit trolls instead of making systems that are safe and reliable.
> anti-utilitarian make-work to fend off lawsuit trolls
Making sure that people aren't blocked from completing a task due to a situation beyond their control, such as a physical disability, seems pretty important to me. It's true that some organizations only implement accessibility for the sake of preventing lawsuits, but there's a legitimate reason to have that legislation in the first place.
Sounds like you should look for a new job that has more of what you like to do. However so much of reliable software product development is confligs, logging, documentation, unit tests...
> new screen readers and new web APIs come out and and more.
New web APIs, for sure. But the screen reader market is not fast moving, in terms of new software being adopted. The line-up of the most used three screen readers (NVDA, JAWS and VoiceOver) has not changed in over a decade, despite the individual software applications themselves undergoing changes, and of course the market share of each one increasing and decreasing over time.
> Do we seriously expect every small non-technical business eking out a living with a small store to be experts on every facet of accessibility?
No, but I also don't expect such a business to be up on the latest in security, PCI compliance, GDPR conformance and more. For that reason, they are probably either:
1. engaging a web design/development agency; and/or
2. using a pre-defined platform, like Shopify.
In the former case, I do expect anyone making money from website building to at least give accessibility some thought. For the latter, Shopify is one of the businesses you describe, as a "large tech company who can write a blank check for a large team of full-time developers who can work full time on nothing but accessibility". As such, they absolutely should be setting up small business owners for success, by making their out-of-the-box themes, widgets, flows, etc. reasonably accessible to the widest possible audience.
Can we acknowledge that there’s more than 1 important competing “socially good” value that’s in conflict with your prescription?
Your prescription is a large step towards the death of what portion of the free and open web still exists. Just saying “build your business website on some default storefront or walled-garden by Facebook, Amazon, Shopify, or some other mega corporation’s platform and don’t change 1 line of code or risk legal obliteration” is close to a death sentence for an independent web.
Is it not valid to point out that doing our best to maintain an independent web is also an important value as well for the world, for disabled people, and future generations?
Inaccessibility can prevent a person from getting a job, or cause a person to lose their job if the requirements for that job change (I've seen it happen). What is the equivalent personal cost of further centralizing the web?
As long as those users aren't disabled.