Accessibility based Autofill, question of future

antdking
antdking
Community Member

Hey guys, great work on getting the accessibility based Autofill into the app. Loving it, especially useful since not all my devices will get Oreo.

However, it's recently been in the news that Google will be blocking use of accessibility going forward for anything not orientated towards disabilities.

Will there be plans to try to have google let you keep using it? It'd suck to see the hard work gone into doing it, only to have the plug pulled on it the week after.

article: https://9to5google.com/2017/11/12/apps-android-accessibility-services-removed-google-play-store/


1Password Version: Not Provided
Extension Version: Not Provided
OS Version: Not Provided
Sync Type: Not Provided

Comments

  • AGAlumB
    AGAlumB
    1Password Alumni

    @cybo: Totally. It's something we're exploring so we can have a fallback since it's still early days on Android O Autofill and OpenYOLO. Thanks for the nudge! :)

  • Hey @cybo! As a follow-up to @brenty's comment, I wanted to add a few of my own thoughts here...

    I totally feel your concern over the possibility of having to remove the accessibility service from 1Password. For anyone who doesn't yet get to enjoy the modern marvel of Autofill on Android Oreo, the accessibility service implementation in 1Password is the next best thing and a huge improvement over using keyboards or clipboards for signing into apps.

    I can also see things from Google's perspective as well. The accessibility service framework is a very powerful framework that was purpose-built for enabling assistive technologies for people with disabilities. Over the years, developers have gotten creative and used accessibility beyond the scope of assistive technologies as well. My guess is that this has been mostly okay, because it hasn't interfered with the intended purpose of the accessibility framework, and it has been of benefit rather than harm to Android users.

    Unfortunately, the accessibility framework has seen some abuse recently at the hands of some bad actors. As with many things, one bad apple can spoil it for the whole bunch. With the potential for abuse demonstrated, it makes sense that Google is being assertive about how the accessibility service framework can and cannot be used.

    I don't think that this necessarily precludes all of the creative uses of the accessibility framework. For example, while the 1Password accessibility service can be generally useful to everyone, it is specifically useful to people with disabilities as well. If typing out strong, unique passwords is difficult and tedious for the average person, then it stands to reason that it would be just as difficult and tedious for a person relying on assistive technologies, if not more so. From that perspective, I think that the 1Password accessibility service does satisfy the original intent of the accessibility framework.

    The decision will ultimately be up to Google, but I hope this offers you some reassurance that we're keen to advocate for keeping the accessibility service in 1Password.

  • vivekkrish
    vivekkrish
    Community Member

    I read on the LastPass blog (https://blog.lastpass.com/2017/11/lastpass-android-accessibility-services.html/) that since they work closely with Google, there is no immediate impact to their application.

    I sincerely hope that 1Password continues to exist in its current form on the Google Play Store, enabling auto-fill both via Accessibility (pre-Android O) and the new Autofill API.

    Thanks for the awesome work and great product!

  • Thanks so much for the kind words, @vivekkrish! And not to worry about our accessibility service. You can continue filling using the accessibility service, Autofill in Android O, and soon, Open YOLO. :)

  • vivekkrish
    vivekkrish
    Community Member

    Thank you for the clarification, @peri. I had no idea about the OpenYOLO initiative. Sounds super exciting! Look forward to more innovations.

  • AGAlumB
    AGAlumB
    1Password Alumni

    :chuffed: :+1:

This discussion has been closed.