5 ms·

Accessibility isn't something to patch, it is the foundation of the open web, shaken by the massive influence of div soup frameworks.

by rado 5y ago

wyager 5y ago
I don't think there is a coherent historical or technical basis to claim that accessibility (as the term is being used in this thread) is "the foundation of the open web".
jaywalk 5y ago
That's a ridiculous statement. Of course it's something to patch.
- tomcam 5y ago
  I wonder if GP Meant something like this. Pure HTML pages without Javascript hijacking the UI elements actually appear to be highly accessible. Or am I wrong about this?
  - searchableguy 5y ago
    > Pure HTML pages without Javascript hijacking the UI elements actually appear to be highly accessible Nope. Dialog, progress, details, many input types, etc html tags are not very accessible by default and behave differently in browsers. From the top of my head, you cannot get a proper date picker in safari using html alone. You also need to change attributes to help navigate the user. Mind you, accessibility goes beyond screen readers. You will need javascript for building gesture controls, keyboard shortcuts, etc which is very needed for people with restricted movements. Many people will need UX feedback to understand what is going on. You cannot achieve that without Javascript. Animations, focus, etc are all part of usability and comes under accessibility.
    - tomcam 5y ago
      Thanks, was not aware of these issues
  - gedy 5y ago
    HTML is not accessible by default, so this should not be confused with a simplistic "SPAs/JS are bad!" argument. In fact, many JS component libraries make it easier to comply with a11y since they can encapsulate and consistently share a11y needs like aria attributes, etc.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      If pure semantic HTML isn't accessible then that is the fault of the browser/screenreader, and that's where the burden should lie. Do a whole fix in one place for the benefit of everyone, rather than making every tiny website make a bunch of half fixes.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        That's a nice principle, but legally the burden is on the website owner. We have to live within the reality that browsers do not provide, out of the box, accessible html components in some cases.
- jgod 5y ago
  I also think you misread him. He said something like: accessibility cannot be simply duct-taped on. It's a fundamental part of the core web technologies, that all the JS frameworks have obsfucated.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Having worked some in 508 compliance space -- if you treat it like a patch, you'll get a lot of different testers suggesting to try different things to fix it to bring it up to standards. I.e. the situation you are in.
- searchableguy 5y ago
  You cannot patch some of the accessibility issues. You will need to design your layout and order elements properly. You cannot patch it with aria- soup which many developers do.
- bumblebritches5 5y ago

Accessibility isn't something to patch, it is the foundation of the open web, shaken by the massive influence of div soup frameworks.

by rado 5y ago

Accessibility isn't something to patch, it is the foundation of the open web, shaken by the massive influence of div soup frameworks.

wyager 5y ago

I don't think there is a coherent historical or technical basis to claim that accessibility (as the term is being used in this thread) is "the foundation of the open web".

jaywalk 5y ago

That's a ridiculous statement. Of course it's something to patch.

tomcam 5y ago
I wonder if GP Meant something like this. Pure HTML pages without Javascript hijacking the UI elements actually appear to be highly accessible. Or am I wrong about this?
- searchableguy 5y ago
  > Pure HTML pages without Javascript hijacking the UI elements actually appear to be highly accessible Nope. Dialog, progress, details, many input types, etc html tags are not very accessible by default and behave differently in browsers. From the top of my head, you cannot get a proper date picker in safari using html alone. You also need to change attributes to help navigate the user. Mind you, accessibility goes beyond screen readers. You will need javascript for building gesture controls, keyboard shortcuts, etc which is very needed for people with restricted movements. Many people will need UX feedback to understand what is going on. You cannot achieve that without Javascript. Animations, focus, etc are all part of usability and comes under accessibility.
  - tomcam 5y ago
    Thanks, was not aware of these issues
- gedy 5y ago
  HTML is not accessible by default, so this should not be confused with a simplistic "SPAs/JS are bad!" argument. In fact, many JS component libraries make it easier to comply with a11y since they can encapsulate and consistently share a11y needs like aria attributes, etc.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    If pure semantic HTML isn't accessible then that is the fault of the browser/screenreader, and that's where the burden should lie. Do a whole fix in one place for the benefit of everyone, rather than making every tiny website make a bunch of half fixes.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      That's a nice principle, but legally the burden is on the website owner. We have to live within the reality that browsers do not provide, out of the box, accessible html components in some cases.
jgod 5y ago
I also think you misread him. He said something like: accessibility cannot be simply duct-taped on. It's a fundamental part of the core web technologies, that all the JS frameworks have obsfucated.
tomrod 5y ago
Having worked some in 508 compliance space -- if you treat it like a patch, you'll get a lot of different testers suggesting to try different things to fix it to bring it up to standards. I.e. the situation you are in.
searchableguy 5y ago
You cannot patch some of the accessibility issues. You will need to design your layout and order elements properly. You cannot patch it with aria- soup which many developers do.
bumblebritches5 5y ago