3 ms·

Funny enough, I think you're saying the same thing I am but looking at it from a different angle. I'm not saying JS-forward web apps shouldn't exist. I'm sayin

Funny enough, I think you're saying the same thing I am but looking at it from a different angle. I'm not saying JS-forward web apps shouldn't exist. I'm saying that some services should not only offer JS-forward web apps if their obligatory clientele ranges across the entire spectrum in terms of financial or technological resources and physical ability. Screen readers do not fare well on poorly structured and JS-forward web sites, for example—but the blind still need to access their online banking when their local bank branch removed their tellers and replaced them with a terminal that accesses the web portal alone...

jameshart 5y ago
It's not that simple - modern screenreaders cope pretty well with dynamic UI elements (so long as they are implemented correctly); it's actually pretty unfair to force someone who has a screenreader to keep having to start again at the top of a page and navigate back to where they were every time they interact with the page, because you wanted to keep things simple and clean and just serve up plain markup from a server. Sighted users can keep their place on the page across a reload, but screenreader users might be back to hearing the title and top level nav options again. Remember that what blind users use to interact with plain web navigation is called 'assistive technology' - it adds more interaction options onto plain web pages. You couldn't build such a thing with just HTML. In general, JavaScript offers the opportunity for web-delivered experiences to be improved - for all their users. Browsing with Javascript disabled means you are not going to get to enjoy those benefits. And I don't think that businesses should all feel obliged to try to provide a completely equal experience for someone who chooses to browse with such a restriction.

3 ms·

Funny enough, I think you're saying the same thing I am but looking at it from a different angle. I'm not saying JS-forward web apps shouldn't exist. I'm sayin

by 52-6F-62 5y ago

jameshart 5y ago
It's not that simple - modern screenreaders cope pretty well with dynamic UI elements (so long as they are implemented correctly); it's actually pretty unfair to force someone who has a screenreader to keep having to start again at the top of a page and navigate back to where they were every time they interact with the page, because you wanted to keep things simple and clean and just serve up plain markup from a server. Sighted users can keep their place on the page across a reload, but screenreader users might be back to hearing the title and top level nav options again. Remember that what blind users use to interact with plain web navigation is called 'assistive technology' - it adds more interaction options onto plain web pages. You couldn't build such a thing with just HTML. In general, JavaScript offers the opportunity for web-delivered experiences to be improved - for all their users. Browsing with Javascript disabled means you are not going to get to enjoy those benefits. And I don't think that businesses should all feel obliged to try to provide a completely equal experience for someone who chooses to browse with such a restriction.