I've written Freedom Scientific about this issue and asked them if they would consider adding something to Jaws that would solve captchas. As usual all they said was that the information was forwarded to their technical team. Will this have any affect? You never know. But I'm also quite sure that I am not the only one who wrote to them and asked the same thing. It would be nice if they would. It would solve a lot of headaches!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 1/17/2016 3:33 PM, Mario wrote: Gerald, I think it's inevitable that web visum is going to be lost, since it is recommended not to continue to use an outdated version of firefox. it is possible that Mozilla's ADO (forgot what ADO stands for) team who can sign extensions that are abandond but essentially beneficial for a particular reason, that being, that since the developers of web visum have abandoned the extension, and wv does serve a purpose of enabling blind users to solve CAPTCHAs, and there is no other plugin that can do what wv did, they should sign it so we can still solve CAPTCHAs that some websites still employ.
On 1/17/2016 1:31 PM, Gerald Levy wrote:
It is Mozilla that is concerned about unsigned add-ons. Apparently, unsigned add-ons have been used to introduce malware into Firefox, and so Mozilla now requires that all developers of third-party add-ons sign them to comply with the former's security standards and verify that they are free of malware. . The developers of Webvisum abandoned it years ago, and so there is no way to contact them and implore them to sign it to bring it up to snuff. And starting with Firefox 44 or 45, Webvisum and all other unsined add-ons will no longer work because the config entry to enable them will be permanently removed. So once you have Firefox 43 working with Webvisum, it would be a good idea to uncheck the box on the advanced tab of the tools menu that allows Firefox to update itself automatically. Otherwise,you will be automatically updated to Firefox 44 and 45 and lose Webvisum forever.
Gerald
-----Original Message----- From: Bill White Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:40 PM To: jfw@groups.io Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not working with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
Hi, Mario. I have never understood this issue concerning unsigned AdOns. If a person makes the change to allow all unsigned AdOns to run, and they are afraid of running another unsigned AdOn, all they need to do is uninstall the AdOn or plugin which they don't want to run. That is what the AdOns manager is for. Bill White billwhite92701@dslextreme.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mario" <mrb620@hotmail.com> To: <jfw@groups.io> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Does anyone know whether the problem with webvisum not working with the latest version of firefox has been fixed?
in addition, there is a change that can be made in firefox's configuration settings that can allow unsigned extensions to run, but that allows, any, unsigned extension/plugin to run, thus defeating mozillas attempt to improve firefox's security. it's been suggested to use an earlier portable version of firefox (42) and adding web visum, and use that version when you need to solve captchas.
On 1/17/2016 11:09 AM, Mario wrote:
David, since I've upgraded firefox to 43.0.4, web visum is working okay for me. but some other blind users are experiencing that they can't get wv to install for them. the problem is more of a security issue in that wv is not digitally signed. however in my case, before upgrading firefox to the latest version, web visum was set to automatically start and log me in when ff was started. maybe that's why my web visum is still working okay.
On 1/16/2016 8:28 PM, David Ingram wrote:
Hi list members, I’d like to know whether the problem of webvisum not working with the latest version of firefox has been fixed yet? I’d like to let firefox know of this problem but I’m not sure how I would do that or if they would be able to respond to this request in a timely manner. Thank you for any information that you might have concerning this question.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12882 (20160117) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 12882 (20160117) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|