4 ms·

> We have lists implemented like divs, navs like divs, lack of appropriate attributes, aria labels and few other things. Since I don't use accessibility tools:

> We have lists implemented like divs, navs like divs, lack of appropriate attributes, aria labels and few other things. Since I don't use accessibility tools: how big of a deal is this for people who do? I try to keep my personal website lightweight, but I think I also use `div` for almost everything.

Taywee 5y ago
Theoretically, screen readers handle the "semantic web" better than anything else. Divs are used for layout and presentation, and don't convey much useful information about structure most of the time, so div-heavy sites can be really hard for blind people even if they look great, clean, minimal, and simple for the sighted. I say "theoretically" because I'm not blind and have never used a screen reader, and I'm not extremely experienced in the area.
epolanski 5y ago
For this particular website the impact isn't tragic, you can navigate, but you cannot navigate efficiently nor you can figure out well what and where you're navigating to. In short, it's usable but not perfect, the sidebar should be a nav rather than a div to convey it's where major and meaningful navigation is found. It's not easy to figure out without the visual feedback that those links are different than the others on the website. There's also lack of a "skip to content" and similar menus that would help into consuming the content. The dialog popups also lack the same usability, they would benefit of clearer aria-labels on the links. Anyway, I don't think it's a tragedy, again, it's usable, but given that the author lists accessibility as one of its 4 rules and yet it's not really a pinnacle of accessibility, despite the lack of dynamic content and interaction is not great.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  > the sidebar should be a nav rather than a div to convey it's where major and meaningful navigation is found I think you are mixing two issues here, what's good for the end user and what's good for the developer and maintenance of the site. Both matter of course greatly but I think this article was about optimizing the user-experience. From the users' point of view does it matter if a section is a 'nav' or a 'div' which has CSS-class 'nav' assigned to it?
  - MaxLeiter 5y ago
    screen readers don’t account for css. You either need it to be a semantic <nav> element or an element with role=“nav”
  - mariusor 5y ago
    > From the users' point of view does it matter if a section is a 'nav' or a 'div' which has CSS-class 'nav' assigned to it? Yes. There are people that use devices that rely on these accessibility options to differentiate nuances in the content that might otherwise be obvious when rendered in a standard browser: text only browsers, screen readers to name just a couple.
    - galaxyLogic 5y ago
      That's a good point and I think nav is a great idea, especially for maintenance reasons. Most users won't see the difference. But some will hear the difference.

Taywee 5y ago

Theoretically, screen readers handle the "semantic web" better than anything else. Divs are used for layout and presentation, and don't convey much useful information about structure most of the time, so div-heavy sites can be really hard for blind people even if they look great, clean, minimal, and simple for the sighted. I say "theoretically" because I'm not blind and have never used a screen reader, and I'm not extremely experienced in the area.

epolanski 5y ago

For this particular website the impact isn't tragic, you can navigate, but you cannot navigate efficiently nor you can figure out well what and where you're navigating to. In short, it's usable but not perfect, the sidebar should be a nav rather than a div to convey it's where major and meaningful navigation is found. It's not easy to figure out without the visual feedback that those links are different than the others on the website. There's also lack of a "skip to content" and similar menus that would help into consuming the content. The dialog popups also lack the same usability, they would benefit of clearer aria-labels on the links. Anyway, I don't think it's a tragedy, again, it's usable, but given that the author lists accessibility as one of its 4 rules and yet it's not really a pinnacle of accessibility, despite the lack of dynamic content and interaction is not great.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
> the sidebar should be a nav rather than a div to convey it's where major and meaningful navigation is found I think you are mixing two issues here, what's good for the end user and what's good for the developer and maintenance of the site. Both matter of course greatly but I think this article was about optimizing the user-experience. From the users' point of view does it matter if a section is a 'nav' or a 'div' which has CSS-class 'nav' assigned to it?
- MaxLeiter 5y ago
  screen readers don’t account for css. You either need it to be a semantic <nav> element or an element with role=“nav”
- mariusor 5y ago
  > From the users' point of view does it matter if a section is a 'nav' or a 'div' which has CSS-class 'nav' assigned to it? Yes. There are people that use devices that rely on these accessibility options to differentiate nuances in the content that might otherwise be obvious when rendered in a standard browser: text only browsers, screen readers to name just a couple.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    That's a good point and I think nav is a great idea, especially for maintenance reasons. Most users won't see the difference. But some will hear the difference.