3 ms·

> You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... If you do it on purpose, then maybe, but not to the degree of what webstack offers. Peo

> You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... If you do it on purpose, then maybe, but not to the degree of what webstack offers. People already have a hard time to handle org-mode-hierachies and folding... > The Web is also designed around a linear flow of text. No, that went out the door when CSS was added. Now it's designed around random positioning of little boxes. Some boxes contain linear text, some contain media, most contain even more little boxes. Emacs does not have those boxes in the first place. The only boxes it has are outside the document, avoiding this whole class of problems for accesability.

shawnz 6y ago
Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, thus letting you create whatever little boxes you want. Plus, it has support for images and even arbitrary GTK widgets in that buffer too. Remember before CSS, people just did the same thing anyway with tables. CSS only made easier what people were already doing. I am sure the same would happen to Emacs if it ever became a widely used piece of software.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, Does the emacs-api directly support this or is it just some hacked up solution everyone must do on their own? Of course can you emulate boxes and any kind of layout-sytem, but whether it's a general supported solution or just some ugly hack that has no backing in the general culture of a software, makes a significant difference. It's the difference between 99% of all encountered content is problematic for accesability or just 1%.