3 ms·

When i started working web IE6 was still far far in the future, i also learned the semantic use of html JADAJADAJADA table-layouts bad JADAJADAJADA and i most o

by FloNeu 7y ago

When i started working web IE6 was still far far in the future, i also learned the semantic use of html JADAJADAJADA table-layouts bad JADAJADAJADA and i most of the time enforced myself to apply this 'best'-practices - truth is - i never saw this providing value in any kind. The web is so full of shit and abuse of 'best'-practices - nothing will every really on this and work. I would often have saved myself and my clients a lot of headaches/time and money if i had just used table-layouts instead of css-layouts and other crap - but hey whatever 'float's your boat.

jkingsman 7y ago
"JADAJADAJADA"?
pragmatic 7y ago
I believe you mean "yada yada" instead of jadajada? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada%20yada https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada%20yada
- nabeards 7y ago
  Perhaps in their native language a J is sometimes/always pronounced like an English Y.
- dsego 7y ago
  Why are people down-voting an honest and helpful suggestion?
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Anglo-splaining.
    - mixedCase 7y ago
      Can we stop producing the -splaining words and roll back the ones already shipped.
  - bartl 7y ago
    "helpful"?
    - dsego 7y ago
      I would consider correcting someone politely as being helpful. We are all here to learn.
- FloNeu 7y ago
  thanks, captain :)
klodolph 7y ago
The benefit is for people who need assistive technologies to browse the web. If you don’t know anyone who needs assistive technologies, then of course you wouldn’t see the benefit.
- FloNeu 7y ago
  Nope... how would someone have used (with assistant technology) the web back in the day if that would break it. You have to do some extra work for a good user experience, for these users anyway - so i don't take this as an argument ( as i said - if a screen-reader or other tools would fully relay on html-semantics to work - it wouldn't work).
  - klodolph 7y ago
    > Nope... how would someone have used (with assistant technology) the web back in the day if that would break it. This is begging the question! You start with the assumption that assistive technologies can handle table-based layouts well, and then work backwards from the conclusion that you’re trying to prove. It may shock or surprise you, then, to learn that in actual fact, table-based layouts caused problems for screen readers (and still do, if I am not mistaken). There are a number of other ways that websites break screen readers, and the difference today is that (1) table-based layouts are hardly necessary or even popular these days and (2) more people are suing over ADA violations for inaccessible web pages. The screen-reader tools do not fully rely on HTML semantics, but they do need some logic to differentiate between tabular content and purely presentational <table>. The reason for this should be fairly obvious once you look at any actual web page—when you navigate tables, you want to go by columns and rows, but if you are reading a table used for layout, you probably just want to flatten it and go through the entire thing in linear order (more or less). The process can be disorienting for people with screen readers if your site is poorly designed. Of course, if you just make assumptions and guess about how screen readers and assistive technologies work, there is a good chance that your guesses are wrong.
    - FloNeu 7y ago
      Well, i don't use table layouts knowadays too - i didn't go into details about screen-readers, as the styles i usally apply for those are more similar to the printing stylesheets, hiding most design-elements -displaying the content more in a document-format, adding special screen-reader navigation, like goto-navigation/content etc. created a website for a 'disabled home' ( is this correct word ) - which was mostly used by the patients there, had some vision impaired ( not fully blind i think), but mostly spastics using various input-methodes ( keyboard, joysticks and some software ) and it seemed to work pretty good. What i meant in my first comment was purly targeted at the semantic meaning of html-elements.

by FloNeu 7y ago

jkingsman 7y ago

"JADAJADAJADA"?

pragmatic 7y ago

I believe you mean "yada yada" instead of jadajada? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada%20yada https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada%20yada

nabeards 7y ago
Perhaps in their native language a J is sometimes/always pronounced like an English Y.
dsego 7y ago
Why are people down-voting an honest and helpful suggestion?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Anglo-splaining.
  - mixedCase 7y ago
    Can we stop producing the -splaining words and roll back the ones already shipped.
- bartl 7y ago
  "helpful"?
  - dsego 7y ago
    I would consider correcting someone politely as being helpful. We are all here to learn.
FloNeu 7y ago
thanks, captain :)

klodolph 7y ago

The benefit is for people who need assistive technologies to browse the web. If you don’t know anyone who needs assistive technologies, then of course you wouldn’t see the benefit.

FloNeu 7y ago
Nope... how would someone have used (with assistant technology) the web back in the day if that would break it. You have to do some extra work for a good user experience, for these users anyway - so i don't take this as an argument ( as i said - if a screen-reader or other tools would fully relay on html-semantics to work - it wouldn't work).
- klodolph 7y ago
  > Nope... how would someone have used (with assistant technology) the web back in the day if that would break it. This is begging the question! You start with the assumption that assistive technologies can handle table-based layouts well, and then work backwards from the conclusion that you’re trying to prove. It may shock or surprise you, then, to learn that in actual fact, table-based layouts caused problems for screen readers (and still do, if I am not mistaken). There are a number of other ways that websites break screen readers, and the difference today is that (1) table-based layouts are hardly necessary or even popular these days and (2) more people are suing over ADA violations for inaccessible web pages. The screen-reader tools do not fully rely on HTML semantics, but they do need some logic to differentiate between tabular content and purely presentational <table>. The reason for this should be fairly obvious once you look at any actual web page—when you navigate tables, you want to go by columns and rows, but if you are reading a table used for layout, you probably just want to flatten it and go through the entire thing in linear order (more or less). The process can be disorienting for people with screen readers if your site is poorly designed. Of course, if you just make assumptions and guess about how screen readers and assistive technologies work, there is a good chance that your guesses are wrong.
  - FloNeu 7y ago
    Well, i don't use table layouts knowadays too - i didn't go into details about screen-readers, as the styles i usally apply for those are more similar to the printing stylesheets, hiding most design-elements -displaying the content more in a document-format, adding special screen-reader navigation, like goto-navigation/content etc. created a website for a 'disabled home' ( is this correct word ) - which was mostly used by the patients there, had some vision impaired ( not fully blind i think), but mostly spastics using various input-methodes ( keyboard, joysticks and some software ) and it seemed to work pretty good. What i meant in my first comment was purly targeted at the semantic meaning of html-elements.