4 ms·

The majority of those CSS "hacks" are not at all accessible, however. You'd get to browse the web without JavaScript, and millions of others would not be able t

by krono 4y ago

The majority of those CSS "hacks" are not at all accessible, however. You'd get to browse the web without JavaScript, and millions of others would not be able to browse the web at all.

chrismorgan 4y ago
This is what’s often (OK, almost always) missed with such JavaScriptless components: progressive enhancement with JavaScript, so that it works without JavaScript, and works better with just a little JavaScript. Most of the traditional CSS hacks can be made just as good as the JavaScript version designed with accessibility in mind without too much effort. Most of the time it’s just managing some ARIA attributes and no more. Occasionally you might add an extra supporting element or slightly restructure an existing one.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
Is that a problem with the browsers not providing functionality that should be standard or is it a problem of custom components that need the JS for the dev to specify how they work?
- krono 4y ago
  Not entirely sure if I fully understand your question. To clarify, these CSS hacks often use checkbox inputs for isomorphic state management and that is simply incompatible with the semantics those elements are designed and expected to represent. ECMAScript is a browser standard and was specifically invented for adding interactivity like toggling a hamburger menu. Yes it's also used for less savoury business but that's not the end-user's fault and shouldn't be made into their problem.
  - agileAlligator 4y ago
    > To clarify, these CSS hacks often use checkbox inputs for isomorphic state management and that is simply incompatible with the semantics those elements are designed and expected to represent. The one mentioned in the article, does not use checkboxes. It uses functionality built into HTML itself
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  browsers do provide that functionality, just with JS. CSS is not designed, to be something you're supposed to write Doom in even though you can. It hasn't been really updated with the purpose of 'obviate javascript' because the browsers don't really want to do that.

by krono 4y ago

The majority of those CSS "hacks" are not at all accessible, however. You'd get to browse the web without JavaScript, and millions of others would not be able to browse the web at all.

chrismorgan 4y ago

This is what’s often (OK, almost always) missed with such JavaScriptless components: progressive enhancement with JavaScript, so that it works without JavaScript, and works better with just a little JavaScript. Most of the traditional CSS hacks can be made just as good as the JavaScript version designed with accessibility in mind without too much effort. Most of the time it’s just managing some ARIA attributes and no more. Occasionally you might add an extra supporting element or slightly restructure an existing one.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

Is that a problem with the browsers not providing functionality that should be standard or is it a problem of custom components that need the JS for the dev to specify how they work?

krono 4y ago
Not entirely sure if I fully understand your question. To clarify, these CSS hacks often use checkbox inputs for isomorphic state management and that is simply incompatible with the semantics those elements are designed and expected to represent. ECMAScript is a browser standard and was specifically invented for adding interactivity like toggling a hamburger menu. Yes it's also used for less savoury business but that's not the end-user's fault and shouldn't be made into their problem.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  > To clarify, these CSS hacks often use checkbox inputs for isomorphic state management and that is simply incompatible with the semantics those elements are designed and expected to represent. The one mentioned in the article, does not use checkboxes. It uses functionality built into HTML itself
bobthepanda 4y ago
browsers do provide that functionality, just with JS. CSS is not designed, to be something you're supposed to write Doom in even though you can. It hasn't been really updated with the purpose of 'obviate javascript' because the browsers don't really want to do that.