4 ms·

The very first place I worked at (as a developer) was a university. We were, for obvious reasons, very concerned with accessibility. I know this doesn't sit w

The very first place I worked at (as a developer) was a university. We were, for obvious reasons, very concerned with accessibility. I know this doesn't sit well with most web developers, but the primary thing that made it easier (back then, and IANAL), was to use HTML instead of javascript. Another way of saying that is, the primary problem with making websites accessible, is that they have far more javascript than they need, for functionality like "allow the user to submit a form" or "allow the user to click on a link". 99% of accessibility problems with current websites would disappear if they were made with 20th century web technology. Also, I have to add, they would work better for the rest of us in 99% of the cases. There are a few websites whose functionality actually benefits from React (or Vue or whatever), but most websites are either doing "show this static content" or "allow this form to be submitted", and the primary reason the javascript is there is that the developer wants it there, not that it does the user any real good.

rajin444 5y ago
It’s extreme developer specific tunnel vision to think removing JS would be good. Your comment is pretty ironic because that same sentiment (“this is how I see the world”) is what makes the web so inaccessible for disabled people.
- tomrod 5y ago
  I disagree. They speak from experience. Removing JS from the user experience simplifies the developer's toolset to a subset which is usually also accessible. There is still room for beloved JS, such as serving ads, tracking user behavior, mining crypto on unsuspecting users' computers, centering a div, and all the other arcane utilities for which one disables JS in the browser for.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    Accessibility and JS are not mutually exclusive. It's just much easier to do accessibility without JS.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Exactly. Removing JS simplifies a developers toolkit to a subset that is also often accessible.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Correct. More specifically, the HTML standard itself has quite a bit of accessibility friendliness baked in, and the remainder has been patched over by screen readers and other tools successfully due to sheer age of the standard. When you make the site self-modifying with JavaScript, you as the developer are taking on the responsibility of continuing that chain of wise design decisions. And much like the thought that you probably shouldn't roll your own crypto unless you're a cryptography expert, maybe bending the user experience too far is something you shouldn't do unless you have some accessibility training.
- Firmwarrior 5y ago
  Man, I'm really surprised anyone here actually seems to like JavaScript I use so few websites that legitimately need it.. looking at my open tabs right now, I have Gmail, Discord, and Coderpad that legitimately implemented interactive web applications with JavaScript, and then every other one of the 20 tabs is just a static website that uses JavaScript as a weapon to track me and interfere with me in various ways
  - userbinator 5y ago
    I'm not surprised, if you look at the front-page articles a lot of the time there will be something about the latest JS framework. HN has a significant number of web developers in its userbase. Gmail has a static HTML version too.
at_a_remove 5y ago
Odd, because when I was the effective head of web for a university, they weren't concerned with accessibility in the slightest (This extended into the physical realm, wheelchair users complained constantly). What they wanted to do was deliver pictures, pretty pictures, and lots of them, and have effects. I couldn't get anyone to spare the time on it. I had my own tricks (lynx, glasses in weird prescriptions, dark sunglasses, odd mouse settings) to simulate various issues, but ... they ain't got time for that! Finally, I found an argument that worked. Just as pointing out that many accommodations help out those who are not disabled, well ... disability-friendly sites naturally lend themselves to better rankings on search engines. Sadly, that was the only argument that carried any weight.
- CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
  When we’re you effective head of web?
  - at_a_remove 5y ago
    About 2000 through 2007.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  Clever. I don't know why Univ of Texas at Austin was different than your experience, but it was. It's the only university I've worked at as a developer, so I assumed that was it, but perhaps it was just that particular university's developer culture.
jameshart 5y ago
The thing is, sure, plain HTML pages can be accessible, but my goodness they can be tedious. Sighted browser users don’t particularly care if when they click through the page forward/backward links or sort a grid view by clicking a header, if the whole page reloads or if an Ajax call happens in the background. Their mouse pointer and their visual focus remain on the same place on the screen, and whether there’s a flash of white before it reappears, or a slick animated spinner, they can fluently interact with the page regardless of how it accomplishes that interaction. But imagine using a screenreader on such a site where, every time you interact with a grid, it loads up a new page. Every time you do something, the screenreader tells you the page title, starts reading the navigation. You skip to main content. Then you need to navigate back through the table to where you were. Then you need to interact again, and.. boom, back to another page load. This is an experience that can absolutely be enhanced through JavaScript. ARIA makes it possible for you to offer that screenreader user a much more fluent experience, where navigating to another page loads more content and immediately reads it back to you. Sure, the HTML version is always going to be somewhat navigable with a screenreader. But that doesn’t mean it’s actually tolerably accessible.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  It is, absolutely, possible to make an accessible web page with javascript. It is an order of magnitude (and I mean that literally) more likely to happen with a plain HTML page.
  - jameshart 5y ago
    I think you're underestimating the capabilities assistive technologies have for dealing with dynamic UX. Apps can be accessible. Video games can be accessible. The claim that any experience delivered in a web browser should, to enhance accessibility, remove and simplify interactivity down to just hyperlinks and forms, rather than support assistive technology in the use of more advanced interactions, seems completely defeatist.

rajin444 5y ago

It’s extreme developer specific tunnel vision to think removing JS would be good. Your comment is pretty ironic because that same sentiment (“this is how I see the world”) is what makes the web so inaccessible for disabled people.

tomrod 5y ago
I disagree. They speak from experience. Removing JS from the user experience simplifies the developer's toolset to a subset which is usually also accessible. There is still room for beloved JS, such as serving ads, tracking user behavior, mining crypto on unsuspecting users' computers, centering a div, and all the other arcane utilities for which one disables JS in the browser for.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Accessibility and JS are not mutually exclusive. It's just much easier to do accessibility without JS.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Exactly. Removing JS simplifies a developers toolkit to a subset that is also often accessible.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Correct. More specifically, the HTML standard itself has quite a bit of accessibility friendliness baked in, and the remainder has been patched over by screen readers and other tools successfully due to sheer age of the standard. When you make the site self-modifying with JavaScript, you as the developer are taking on the responsibility of continuing that chain of wise design decisions. And much like the thought that you probably shouldn't roll your own crypto unless you're a cryptography expert, maybe bending the user experience too far is something you shouldn't do unless you have some accessibility training.
Firmwarrior 5y ago
Man, I'm really surprised anyone here actually seems to like JavaScript I use so few websites that legitimately need it.. looking at my open tabs right now, I have Gmail, Discord, and Coderpad that legitimately implemented interactive web applications with JavaScript, and then every other one of the 20 tabs is just a static website that uses JavaScript as a weapon to track me and interfere with me in various ways
- userbinator 5y ago
  I'm not surprised, if you look at the front-page articles a lot of the time there will be something about the latest JS framework. HN has a significant number of web developers in its userbase. Gmail has a static HTML version too.

at_a_remove 5y ago

Odd, because when I was the effective head of web for a university, they weren't concerned with accessibility in the slightest (This extended into the physical realm, wheelchair users complained constantly). What they wanted to do was deliver pictures, pretty pictures, and lots of them, and have effects. I couldn't get anyone to spare the time on it. I had my own tricks (lynx, glasses in weird prescriptions, dark sunglasses, odd mouse settings) to simulate various issues, but ... they ain't got time for that! Finally, I found an argument that worked. Just as pointing out that many accommodations help out those who are not disabled, well ... disability-friendly sites naturally lend themselves to better rankings on search engines. Sadly, that was the only argument that carried any weight.

CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
When we’re you effective head of web?
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  About 2000 through 2007.
rossdavidh 5y ago
Clever. I don't know why Univ of Texas at Austin was different than your experience, but it was. It's the only university I've worked at as a developer, so I assumed that was it, but perhaps it was just that particular university's developer culture.

jameshart 5y ago

The thing is, sure, plain HTML pages can be accessible, but my goodness they can be tedious. Sighted browser users don’t particularly care if when they click through the page forward/backward links or sort a grid view by clicking a header, if the whole page reloads or if an Ajax call happens in the background. Their mouse pointer and their visual focus remain on the same place on the screen, and whether there’s a flash of white before it reappears, or a slick animated spinner, they can fluently interact with the page regardless of how it accomplishes that interaction. But imagine using a screenreader on such a site where, every time you interact with a grid, it loads up a new page. Every time you do something, the screenreader tells you the page title, starts reading the navigation. You skip to main content. Then you need to navigate back through the table to where you were. Then you need to interact again, and.. boom, back to another page load. This is an experience that can absolutely be enhanced through JavaScript. ARIA makes it possible for you to offer that screenreader user a much more fluent experience, where navigating to another page loads more content and immediately reads it back to you. Sure, the HTML version is always going to be somewhat navigable with a screenreader. But that doesn’t mean it’s actually tolerably accessible.

rossdavidh 5y ago
It is, absolutely, possible to make an accessible web page with javascript. It is an order of magnitude (and I mean that literally) more likely to happen with a plain HTML page.
- jameshart 5y ago
  I think you're underestimating the capabilities assistive technologies have for dealing with dynamic UX. Apps can be accessible. Video games can be accessible. The claim that any experience delivered in a web browser should, to enhance accessibility, remove and simplify interactivity down to just hyperlinks and forms, rather than support assistive technology in the use of more advanced interactions, seems completely defeatist.