←back to thread

550 points polskibus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
guest2457533 ◴[] No.19116135[source]
Does this meet the required standard for accessibility users? Do they have any such obligations?
replies(2): >>19116146 #>>19116295 #
gothroach ◴[] No.19116295[source]
One of my first thoughts when I saw this was about screen readers. If searching "Sponsored" in Chrome doesn't match the posts, I'd wager screen readers would just go ahead and try to pronounce all the extra 'S's.
replies(1): >>19116356 #
Someone1234 ◴[] No.19116356[source]
It works fine.

Screen readers obey CSS, this uses CSS to hide all of the additional elements (display: none). Screen readers are also designed to work when text is broken up by other inline elements e.g.:

He<b>llo</b> world

In this case it reads out both the words Sponsored and Public.

> If searching "Sponsored" in Chrome doesn't match the posts

That also worked perfectly fine in Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. Did you scroll enough to render any Sponsored posts?

replies(1): >>19116543 #
CharlesColeman ◴[] No.19116543[source]
So the technology to defeat this kind of obfuscation has already been developed and is reliable?
replies(2): >>19116620 #>>19116712 #
1. barbecue_sauce ◴[] No.19116712[source]
And rather insignificant to implement. All this protects against is low-effort document scraping. If they randomized it somehow, that would be a little harder to defeat.