Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 279 posts

Re: Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

#61

Post by extra88 »

jbob2000 wrote: post #18
SwellJoe wrote: post #6

It's not security related, but: Accessibility.

Yep, browsers should have screen readers built in. It's ridiculous that you have to shell out $1000+ for a JAWS license (there are alternatives, but they need work).

Anyone who needs a screen reader needs it for accessing the whole device so building a screen reader into a browser is kind of pointless. The exception being Google's ChromeVox but that's because on Chromebooks the browser effectively is the OS.

NVDA and Windows's Narrator are already probably good enough but JAWS is better. VoiceOver is built into macOS and iOS and is beyond good enough.

Browsers can do a better job of exposing semantics through accessibility APIs to assistive technology [0]. Browsers could also intelligently make up for the failings of web sites; e.g. when a site uses a div with a click event instead of a button element, present it as a button through the accessibility API based on heuristics. Browser rendering engines already do a lot to visually compensate for errors in HTML, they could do the same for some semantic errors.

[0] http://www.html5accessibility.com

Re: Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

#62

Post by extra88 »

SwellJoe wrote: post #32
jbob2000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, browsers should have screen readers built in. It's ridiculous that you have to shell out $1000+ for a JAWS license (there are alternatives, but they need work).

Yeah, I've tried using the free options to sort of test my products, but it's not a realistic test; the most useful work comes from people who use screen readers daily, but it's really hard to test if we've fixed the problem even when it's been identified so we have to go back and forth. And, I mean, there are accommodations and assistive technology built into the standards. It's just nowhere near as widespread as it…

The problem with testing with assistive technology yourself is you're not a real user who knows the tool well. Also, like browser testing, there are differences between different AT; VoiceOver is used by many visually impaired people but what it supports and how it works is different in a number of ways compared to JAWS or NVDA (e.g. VoiceOver doesn't have "form" and "browse" modes).

Search engines giving more accessible sites a "buff" as Google now does for HTTPS sites is a good idea. They already do in a small way in that having things like proper headings are good for SEO but they could go much further.

Google has their own Accessibility Developer Tools [0] add-on, they could make it a default part of Chrome Dev Tools and make it more prominent.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/accessibility-deve...

Re: Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

#67

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

momania wrote: post #66

- A decent minimum password length, without any funky requirements, just the minimal length. - Being able to prosecute any company that stores passwords in plain text

- no max length on password at all, or allow a 3 digit number of chars. Never silently truncate passwords either.

- never disable paste on a password field.

Re: Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

#68

Post by netcraft »

linopolus wrote: post #20

A ban of everything JS except for these so-called web apps, which obviously need it. Make the internet great (performant/efficient/secure) again!

Forgive me, but I just don't understand this sentiment at all. I understand your general frustration with over-engineered websites - but is it not your choice to visit that website? Do you not also have the ability to block javascript just like the scourge of flash websites before it? We aren't talking about vulnerabilities here though, youre just saying that there are websites out there that could do with less (or no) javascript but arent, so you want to "force" them to?

Let me ask it a different way - do you have any reasonable expectation that your proposal will ever be accepted? That browser manufacturers will implement things to limit or block the functionality of js? Where would the line be drawn (and who would draw it) between the so-called web apps and everything else that isn't worthy?

There already are some mechanisms in place to decentivize misbehaving websites such as the google rankings. But thats a far cry from a browser not supporting or displaying some warning when viewing one of those sites.

Maybe im missing something - that there are these required sites that are misbehaving and we need some regulatory power to rein them in.

Re: Ask HN: What feature would you want the web to “force” next, after HTTPS?

#70

Post by jws »

swiley wrote: post #22
syncerr wrote: post #5

I'd vote for DNS-over-HTTPS or similar tech. Encrypting domain name resolution should help mitigate a gateway or proxy (Comcast) from knowing or blocking sites you visit.

DNS is a non-trivial amount of traffic to go moving from a lightweight UDP protocol to something like HTTPS. Furthermore, that would dramatically increase page load times (for reasonably sized pages) since HTTPs requires more turns.

Presumably you would keep-alive your DNS over HTTPS connection. That would keep the packet turns the same.
Post reply on HN