3 ms·
And every single fancy UX JS tooling to provide those features utterly fails to do so in a way that's compatible with screen readers to be usable by people with
by busterarm 2y ago
And every single fancy UX JS tooling to provide those features utterly fails to do so in a way that's compatible with screen readers to be usable by people with visual impairments. Things like fly-out menus can be completely unusable by people with tremors.
ADA lawsuits against websites are massively on the rise (I worked in the early stages of WCAG compliance and helping people seek to bring such lawsuits).
You don't need all that fancy shit to deliver something that works and every time you go overboard with it you're alienating someone...
Edit: Also, wth? Every browser supports showPicker() and you can control and style the crap out of that without pulling components and frameworks into the mix. Nobody's saying don't use JS at all here. You don't need teams of engineers, components and a whole frontend build toolchain to put forms on a basic website. THAT is the complaint here. Not "caveman think JavaScript bad".
- willsmith72 2y agoWe agree on the importance of accessibility, but it can be both terrible and brilliant in every language or framework.
- agos 2y agoThere are excellent options for building accesible stuff in the frontend world nowadays. If somebody is building something that is not accessible, the issue is not with the tooling