4 ms·
> The suggestion is that <h> would solve this, as browsers would implement it & do the right thing in terms of the accessibility tree. > This is a common mista
by TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
> The suggestion is that <h> would solve this, as browsers would implement it & do the right thing in terms of the accessibility tree.
> This is a common mistake in standards discussion - a mistake I've made many times before. You cannot compare the current state of things, beholden to reality, with a utopian implementation of some currently non-existent thing.
Ugh, yes, this happens so often: something is implemented badly, so we propose to add the same thing again under a different name and with subtle differences, assuming it'll be implemented right this time.
If possible, it's better to try and get the implementations fixed. That may not even require changes to the standard.
- sjwright 10y ago> > You cannot compare the current state of things, beholden to reality, with a utopian implementation of some currently non-existent thing. This feels like a fallacy worthy of a name. Does it have one?
- jaffathecake 10y agoMaybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy is closest?
- huskyr 10y ago"A choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be better" is the definition on Wikipedia. Sounds pretty much spot-on.
- franciscop 10y agoXKCD's Standards is the closest I know: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- sjwright 10y agoThe closest thing I can think of is "version 2 syndrome" or what Mythical Man Month described as "second-system effect". But it's not quite that. This cognitive problem tends be a cause of second-system effect.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- teleclimber 10y agoCompletely agree. I read that line twice when I read the article. It applies to so many things. If no name yet let's call it _Archibald's Rule_. I met Jake at a conf and he is a solid yet approachable guy (and funny too).
- oridecon 10y agoWhat's the rule for rules that get named multiple times because nobody knows about them?
- chch 10y agoSeems mostly like The Matthew Effect[1], with a touch of Stigler's law of eponymy[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect#Sociology_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect#Sociology_of_sc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy
- teleclimber 10y agoThese really don't get to the meat of the matter for me as these seem to be about giving credit. I think Nirvana Fallacy, mentioned in another comment is the right one.
- teleclimber 10y agoI did say "If no name yet..."
- oridecon 10y agoIt wasn't a jab at you or anybody, I just found the whole exchange pretty funny
- Retric 10y agoBackwards compatibility is often a reason not to fix things. So, there can be reasons to introduce a new standard. The other option is an element that means, yes I want you to do this the correct way, which IMO is a better solution and arguably already part of HTML.
- buzzybee 10y agoThe strategy I take now when confronted with something like this (in internal codebases, since I don't work on standards) is to refactor the interior implementation to include a new module with a "now and later" view: it does not hinder existing behavior, and it decouples enough of the internals that a rewrite or a new system with similar behavior can reuse the module as-is with a modest amount of integration effort; sometimes a facade module is included to make highly abstracted internals easier to consume in the 80% case. For example, an audio API that has nitty-gritty details about formats and buffers, but also has a "load and play this sound file" easing facade. Starting at the rewrite tends to obscure the actual dependencies and enable second system effects: factoring out the module gives you an anchor to hang things off of, either in the form of a general-purpose abstraction or an implementation detail surfaced as an API. Subsequently, maintenance will tend towards accepting the module as-is, and the "rewrite" turns into a refactor that uses the same module in a new context.
- tracker1 10y agoIt seems like this could be addressed with some simple CSS rules as a "default"