🚨 🦮 Seven ways to test for accessibility using only what is already in browser developer tools of Chromium browsers https://t.co/C7kdbigHGE
@MSEdgeDev @EdgeDevTools @ChromiumDev
#tools #accessibility #browsers
Also, a thread: 👇🏼
Note: the current algorithm fails to take font weight into consideration, that's why there will be a new one.
https://t.co/bxj1vySCAb
Sneak preview: soon we'll also have high contrast simulation.
More from Internet
The Internet and mobile phones have taken over our lives. But it comes with increasing security concerns. Website data breaches, phishing attacks, and other online scams are commonplace. Here's a thread for regular people on how to increase your security online.
#StaySafeOnline
#1
Go to your Google account settings. Revoke permissions from all the apps you don't use: https://t.co/cMGgSgtRTI
Also check if any app has access to your contacts or - gasp! - your entire email. Strongly reconsider both, especially access to your email.
Giving access to your contacts lets companies spam those people.
Giving access to your email - email organising apps, for instance - renders your online security meaningless. Password resets are often done with email, and if an external entity can access that, game over!
#2
Go to your Twitter account settings and revoke permissions from all the apps you don't use or trust:
https://t.co/lXxCgdnaXH
Online quizzes and such sites often ask for permission to post tweets for you, read your tweets, and even your DMs!.
People click "OK" without reading the fine print.
But imagine the security and privacy risk with having some unknown entity be able to post tweets and read your private DMs just to post the results of what Game of Thrones character you are.
#StaySafeOnline
#1
Go to your Google account settings. Revoke permissions from all the apps you don't use: https://t.co/cMGgSgtRTI
Also check if any app has access to your contacts or - gasp! - your entire email. Strongly reconsider both, especially access to your email.
Giving access to your contacts lets companies spam those people.
Giving access to your email - email organising apps, for instance - renders your online security meaningless. Password resets are often done with email, and if an external entity can access that, game over!
#2
Go to your Twitter account settings and revoke permissions from all the apps you don't use or trust:
https://t.co/lXxCgdnaXH
Online quizzes and such sites often ask for permission to post tweets for you, read your tweets, and even your DMs!.
People click "OK" without reading the fine print.
But imagine the security and privacy risk with having some unknown entity be able to post tweets and read your private DMs just to post the results of what Game of Thrones character you are.
Well, this should be a depressing read -- notably because the UK and the US are both terrible when it comes to data protection, but the UK appears to be getting a pass. So much for 'adequacy'.
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4
At least we have a draft of the adequacy decision. I haven't read it yet, mostly because I'm afraid I'll be disappointed that it doesn't address the UK's penchant for surveillance. https://t.co/puJiVET2SJ
— Don Edwards (@DMEdwards) February 20, 2021
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4
