4 ms·

Accessibility Through Semantic HTML

44 points by kawera 9y ago

andybak 9y ago
From a brief reading (apologies if I missed something): Author cherry picks one of the few elements where the "semantic" issue actually results in different browser behaviour. They then go on to extrapolate this to a broader point that isn't sustainable based on that example. For instance - div vs section has no effect on functionality to the best of my knowledge. I suspect there are more examples of cases where semantic HTML is pointless cargo-culting than there are of when it makes a real difference to any existant user agent.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Well, the point about screen readers is far from cargo cult design.
  - nl 9y ago
    Someone should write a screen reader which actually worked and didn’t rely on people doing the right thing. Screenshot the webpage -> Neural Network to segment the page and decide what is the navigation -> text extraction from image, with corrections from (rendered) HTML source. All the parts are there and work better than existing screen readers.
    - nerdponx 9y ago
      OK, go ahead and build one why don't you? Yes, neural networks for sequence tagging are getting better, but if the problem were so trivial it would have been solved by now. But that's beside the point. Your comment is like saying "They have powered exosuits now, so why do we still need to put ramps on buildings for people in wheelchairs?" I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more web designers.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        Life will get a lot better for the handicapped when engineers care enough to offer them real mobility. Currently they're supposed to be happy to make do with devices developed in the 1930s. I suspect the first engineer to care enough will be someone like Herbert Everest.
        paulryanrogers 9y ago
        "Currently they're supposed to be happy to make do with devices developed in the 1930s." Legs are billions of years old and wheels where invented thousands of years ago. Yet we still use them were they remain most effective. No doubt there is room to improve mobility options, but cost and battery capacity are very real constraints. And sometimes mimicking nature too closely is less effective; i.e. planes without flapping wings. All that to say the web was born more accessible than magazines. It's probably more effective to maintain that semantic heritage than make machines that can translate flattened images like an interpreter. Still, experimentation is great. Nothing wrong with trying to make the machine. I just wouldn't advise that the whole web forget accessibility because the tools _should_ already exist. EDIT: fixed typo
        nl 9y ago
        Yes this is my point too. That reaction is pretty disappointing really. It's the "crutches are fine, why should they want artificial limbs" that is really kind of insulting.
        nerdponx 9y ago
        On the contrary, I'm just trying to acknowledge that artificial limbs are not here and available for the masses just yet.
        nl 9y ago
        I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more web designers. Words like "apathy and contempt" do not seem to be "just trying to acknowledge that artificial limbs". Instead they are directly saying that people who hope for artificial limbs are apathetic and have contempt for the problem. In-fact the complete opposite is true.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Are you sure that extracting document structure from a screenshot is a solved task? I'm aware of "What You Get Is What You See" [1], but they are nowhere close to 100% accuracy even for reconstructing the original markup, which does not even require making inferences about the meaning of the content. You seem to be overestimating how close to practicality neural-network approaches are for most problems. Very much of the potential application space is still firmly within the domain of research. That doesn't mean what you described is completely impossible, just that you could get a PhD for pulling it off. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04938v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04938v1 (incidentally, I noticed that the version of the paper that was accepted for ICML 2017 no longer has the HTML part)
      - nl 9y ago
        Yeah reconstruction of HTML isn't solved. The exciting thing is that in this case it doesn't need to be. Segmentation (which is solved) is sufficient to identify semantically separate parts of the page, and then OCR can be used to place the text from the html on the representation of the page.
        yorwba 9y ago
        Could you point me to a paper where they successfully segment random webpages in the wild semantically? Or other kinds of documents? I expect that to be significantly different from the task of segmenting objects in a photo, because most of the boundaries are not revealed by texture differences, but implicit in the arrangement.
        nl 9y ago
        Most of the work is in document segmentation: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01474 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01474 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07695 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07695 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07363 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07363 I'm pretty sure I've seen some webpage work too, but I don't have the reference.
        9y ago
  - andybak 9y ago
    Has it been verified with an actual screen reader and an actual partially sighted person? I remember a fair while back there being a distinct mismatch between the theory and the reality on the ground. Hardly anyone was actually talking to their intended audience. There was a lot of box ticking.
    - nl 9y ago
      I’ve worked on accessibility tools before and what you say is absolutely true. But unfortunately it’s not worth pointing this out, or daring to think of better ways. I’d note your comment is greyed out, and mine suggestion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056) is way into negative territory. Better to just check boxes I guess.
      - jstewartmobile 9y ago
        Text is pretty darn accessible to begin with. That the markup has gotten to the point where deciphering it with AI becomes a serious suggestion is fairly depressing. Perhaps putting the HTML standard on a diet would be a more efficient approach?
        nl 9y ago
        Text isn't - and has never been - the problem. It's navigation, and richer information that just text.
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        Are you sure about that? I'm a perfectly able person, yet I've had to roll a number of bookmarklets just to make most sites halfway readable. And Jesus help you if you have to rely on a screen reader for the crazy sites we have today. I think this lady was spot-on in her article, but everyone wants so much control that every website ends up reinventing the wheel, badly.
- andqok 9y ago
  Right. The point is not that HTML shouldn't be "semantic". The point is that HTML5 semantic tags aren't suited for this purpose (tags like: article, section, figure, figcaption, details, summary, even header). Instead use ARIA attributes, microformats. For those who want to read more why the issue about semantic HTML5 tags looks controversial: https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/01/the-harsh-truth-about-html5s-structural-semantics-part-1/ https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/01/the-harsh-truth-abo... "A classic example is ‘header’, which most of us would use for the area at the top of the page, but the HTML5 spec, suggests you can use it for the header of every comment on a page. Really. Just because classes in the research and elements in HTML5 have the same name does not mean their uses are the same."
jstewartmobile 9y ago
We have people in the "reality-based community"[0] like Ms. Kalbag posing the fairly rational question of, "Why not go semantic and let the browsers figure the rest out?" Then the "empire" acts, and makes an overcomplicated mess of dancing text, XSS, 3rd-party cookies, popovers, and dickbars[1]. Then as the rest of us are studying that reality--judiciously, as we will--Google/Apple/Mozilla will act again, creating other new realities, which we can study too, and that's how things will sort out. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a... [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars
- nerdponx 9y ago
  I don't see how "the empire" has anything to do with the viability or non-viability of semantic HTML. Would you mind clarifying? If you're making a point I don't understand it.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    The people working on the major browsers aren't fools. If they were optimizing to get meaning across, they'd have done one hell of a better job than half-readable, non-accessible mess we have now that requires megabytes of divs and classes to markup, and a supercomputer to render. Point being that the "empire" does not give a hoot about meaning. Their priorities lie elsewhere. edit: Example. One day Steve Jobs just felt like flash didn't belong on his platform. At the time, flash was everywhere. Where is it now? I'm not shedding a tear for it--just using it as example of what a top-down enterprise the web actually is compared to what some people would like to think.
    - nerdponx 9y ago
      Do you mean Google? Whoever makes the CSS spec? Who or what exactly are you railing against, other than "shitty web design"? Shitty web design is shitty web design. Google and Mozilla themselves didn't make the Smithsonian Magazine site a bloated monstrosity, nor can I think of a reasonable way for a browser to prevent sites from sucking without ruining the "non-geek" user experience on better-behaved dynamic sites and web apps. Anything not supported by HTML or CSS directly will inevitably be implemented in Javascript. We've already been there.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

44 points by kawera 9y ago

From a brief reading (apologies if I missed something): Author cherry picks one of the few elements where the "semantic" issue actually results in different browser behaviour. They then go on to extrapolate this to a broader point that isn't sustainable based on that example. For instance - div vs section has no effect on functionality to the best of my knowledge. I suspect there are more examples of cases where semantic HTML is pointless cargo-culting than there are of when it makes a real difference to any existant user agent.

nerdponx 9y ago
Well, the point about screen readers is far from cargo cult design.
- nl 9y ago
  Someone should write a screen reader which actually worked and didn’t rely on people doing the right thing. Screenshot the webpage -> Neural Network to segment the page and decide what is the navigation -> text extraction from image, with corrections from (rendered) HTML source. All the parts are there and work better than existing screen readers.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    OK, go ahead and build one why don't you? Yes, neural networks for sequence tagging are getting better, but if the problem were so trivial it would have been solved by now. But that's beside the point. Your comment is like saying "They have powered exosuits now, so why do we still need to put ramps on buildings for people in wheelchairs?" I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more web designers.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Life will get a lot better for the handicapped when engineers care enough to offer them real mobility. Currently they're supposed to be happy to make do with devices developed in the 1930s. I suspect the first engineer to care enough will be someone like Herbert Everest.
      - paulryanrogers 9y ago
        "Currently they're supposed to be happy to make do with devices developed in the 1930s." Legs are billions of years old and wheels where invented thousands of years ago. Yet we still use them were they remain most effective. No doubt there is room to improve mobility options, but cost and battery capacity are very real constraints. And sometimes mimicking nature too closely is less effective; i.e. planes without flapping wings. All that to say the web was born more accessible than magazines. It's probably more effective to maintain that semantic heritage than make machines that can translate flattened images like an interpreter. Still, experimentation is great. Nothing wrong with trying to make the machine. I just wouldn't advise that the whole web forget accessibility because the tools _should_ already exist. EDIT: fixed typo
      - nl 9y ago
        Yes this is my point too. That reaction is pretty disappointing really. It's the "crutches are fine, why should they want artificial limbs" that is really kind of insulting.
        nerdponx 9y ago
        On the contrary, I'm just trying to acknowledge that artificial limbs are not here and available for the masses just yet.
        nl 9y ago
        I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more web designers. Words like "apathy and contempt" do not seem to be "just trying to acknowledge that artificial limbs". Instead they are directly saying that people who hope for artificial limbs are apathetic and have contempt for the problem. In-fact the complete opposite is true.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Are you sure that extracting document structure from a screenshot is a solved task? I'm aware of "What You Get Is What You See" [1], but they are nowhere close to 100% accuracy even for reconstructing the original markup, which does not even require making inferences about the meaning of the content. You seem to be overestimating how close to practicality neural-network approaches are for most problems. Very much of the potential application space is still firmly within the domain of research. That doesn't mean what you described is completely impossible, just that you could get a PhD for pulling it off. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04938v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04938v1 (incidentally, I noticed that the version of the paper that was accepted for ICML 2017 no longer has the HTML part)
    - nl 9y ago
      Yeah reconstruction of HTML isn't solved. The exciting thing is that in this case it doesn't need to be. Segmentation (which is solved) is sufficient to identify semantically separate parts of the page, and then OCR can be used to place the text from the html on the representation of the page.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Could you point me to a paper where they successfully segment random webpages in the wild semantically? Or other kinds of documents? I expect that to be significantly different from the task of segmenting objects in a photo, because most of the boundaries are not revealed by texture differences, but implicit in the arrangement.
        nl 9y ago
        Most of the work is in document segmentation: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01474 https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01474 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07695 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.07695 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07363 https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07363 I'm pretty sure I've seen some webpage work too, but I don't have the reference.
        9y ago
- andybak 9y ago
  Has it been verified with an actual screen reader and an actual partially sighted person? I remember a fair while back there being a distinct mismatch between the theory and the reality on the ground. Hardly anyone was actually talking to their intended audience. There was a lot of box ticking.
  - nl 9y ago
    I’ve worked on accessibility tools before and what you say is absolutely true. But unfortunately it’s not worth pointing this out, or daring to think of better ways. I’d note your comment is greyed out, and mine suggestion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16035056) is way into negative territory. Better to just check boxes I guess.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      Text is pretty darn accessible to begin with. That the markup has gotten to the point where deciphering it with AI becomes a serious suggestion is fairly depressing. Perhaps putting the HTML standard on a diet would be a more efficient approach?
      - nl 9y ago
        Text isn't - and has never been - the problem. It's navigation, and richer information that just text.
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        Are you sure about that? I'm a perfectly able person, yet I've had to roll a number of bookmarklets just to make most sites halfway readable. And Jesus help you if you have to rely on a screen reader for the crazy sites we have today. I think this lady was spot-on in her article, but everyone wants so much control that every website ends up reinventing the wheel, badly.
andqok 9y ago
Right. The point is not that HTML shouldn't be "semantic". The point is that HTML5 semantic tags aren't suited for this purpose (tags like: article, section, figure, figcaption, details, summary, even header). Instead use ARIA attributes, microformats. For those who want to read more why the issue about semantic HTML5 tags looks controversial: https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/01/the-harsh-truth-about-html5s-structural-semantics-part-1/ https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/01/the-harsh-truth-abo... "A classic example is ‘header’, which most of us would use for the area at the top of the page, but the HTML5 spec, suggests you can use it for the header of every comment on a page. Really. Just because classes in the research and elements in HTML5 have the same name does not mean their uses are the same."

jstewartmobile 9y ago

We have people in the "reality-based community"[0] like Ms. Kalbag posing the fairly rational question of, "Why not go semantic and let the browsers figure the rest out?" Then the "empire" acts, and makes an overcomplicated mess of dancing text, XSS, 3rd-party cookies, popovers, and dickbars[1]. Then as the rest of us are studying that reality--judiciously, as we will--Google/Apple/Mozilla will act again, creating other new realities, which we can study too, and that's how things will sort out. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a... [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars

nerdponx 9y ago
I don't see how "the empire" has anything to do with the viability or non-viability of semantic HTML. Would you mind clarifying? If you're making a point I don't understand it.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  The people working on the major browsers aren't fools. If they were optimizing to get meaning across, they'd have done one hell of a better job than half-readable, non-accessible mess we have now that requires megabytes of divs and classes to markup, and a supercomputer to render. Point being that the "empire" does not give a hoot about meaning. Their priorities lie elsewhere. edit: Example. One day Steve Jobs just felt like flash didn't belong on his platform. At the time, flash was everywhere. Where is it now? I'm not shedding a tear for it--just using it as example of what a top-down enterprise the web actually is compared to what some people would like to think.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    Do you mean Google? Whoever makes the CSS spec? Who or what exactly are you railing against, other than "shitty web design"? Shitty web design is shitty web design. Google and Mozilla themselves didn't make the Smithsonian Magazine site a bloated monstrosity, nor can I think of a reasonable way for a browser to prevent sites from sucking without ruining the "non-geek" user experience on better-behaved dynamic sites and web apps. Anything not supported by HTML or CSS directly will inevitably be implemented in Javascript. We've already been there.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]