3 ms·

Here's what I don't understand about the ARIA spec - and maybe you can help clarify it for me. Why are we using attributes instead of element names? Like take

by dimmke 4y ago

Here's what I don't understand about the ARIA spec - and maybe you can help clarify it for me. Why are we using attributes instead of element names? Like take this for example: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/ARIA/Roles/application_role https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A... Did we just give up on using semantic elements? People barely know how to write regular HTML anymore, and the ARIA spec is confusing. I'm glad it exists, but to me it fits into the same category as "Web components" - a bad idea that isn't widely adopted because it sucks.

an1sotropy 4y ago
Can you say more about why "it sucks"? Are there some specific changes you can think of that would have made it a less bad idea?
- dimmke 4y ago
  1. It's confusing. The fact that there's a "role" attribute that is implicit sometimes and needs to be declared other times and a "aria-XYZ" set of attributes is stupid. The purist HTML take was always "Markup should describe content" - now we're describing content with attributes? 2. It's positioned specifically as being for accessibility. This is bad for several reasons. First, it's not necessary. The entire goal of semantic markup in the first place was to make it so that the content of documents can be read by machines (both screen readers and other systems) - tacking on a special system just for accessibility is basically them giving up on this entirely. Secondly, a lot of people don't care about accessibility. Like I said, in our current system people barely know how to write HTML. Or they write some bastardized version of it in JSX or w/e. You think they're going to learn the intricacies of ARIA? No. The goal should be for HTML to be a language that when written properly is accessible by default. Not just "hey everybody it's cool if you use divs for everything, just make sure screen readers know what it's supposed to be."

by dimmke 4y ago

an1sotropy 4y ago

Can you say more about why "it sucks"? Are there some specific changes you can think of that would have made it a less bad idea?

dimmke 4y ago
1. It's confusing. The fact that there's a "role" attribute that is implicit sometimes and needs to be declared other times and a "aria-XYZ" set of attributes is stupid. The purist HTML take was always "Markup should describe content" - now we're describing content with attributes? 2. It's positioned specifically as being for accessibility. This is bad for several reasons. First, it's not necessary. The entire goal of semantic markup in the first place was to make it so that the content of documents can be read by machines (both screen readers and other systems) - tacking on a special system just for accessibility is basically them giving up on this entirely. Secondly, a lot of people don't care about accessibility. Like I said, in our current system people barely know how to write HTML. Or they write some bastardized version of it in JSX or w/e. You think they're going to learn the intricacies of ARIA? No. The goal should be for HTML to be a language that when written properly is accessible by default. Not just "hey everybody it's cool if you use divs for everything, just make sure screen readers know what it's supposed to be."