4 ms·
This is absurd. Browsers offer many ways to scrape DOM content that are far more effective than using a screenreader. No doubt there are people who wish DOM con
by roca 9y ago
This is absurd. Browsers offer many ways to scrape DOM content that are far more effective than using a screenreader. No doubt there are people who wish DOM content was harder to scrape, but "make screenreaders suck" would be completely ineffective for that, and accusing browser developers of deliberately doing it is slanderous.
- taeric 9y agoMany of the screens people interested with prior to web 2.0 were much more flat in abstraction. You can simply look at early HTML to see how much simpler a document first format looks. The raw number of embedded div elements greatly complicates most screen reading.
- paulie_a 9y agoExcept pre 2.0 web was design by tables.
- taeric 9y agoNot really. It was certainly a way to do things. But it was less used than the current plethora of divs. Probably easier to understand programmatically, oddly.
- paulie_a 9y agoI built websites in the 90s and tables nested 5-10 deep was a common site
- taeric 9y agoI did too, but I don't remember it nesting to 10 that often. I grant that I likely just don't remember it. I recall most were like HN, embedding a couple of tables. My argument, though, is that 10 is basically just getting started with how nested most div based layouts are. The new "grid" world is a bit of an improvement. Probably a large one, honestly.