3 ms·

The linked site won't display anything with Javascript disabled. Yet, when Javascript is enabled, we don't get a "web app", all we get is a page of text that co

The linked site won't display anything with Javascript disabled. Yet, when Javascript is enabled, we don't get a "web app", all we get is a page of text that could easily be coded in HTML and CSS. Presumably, building this site in meteor makes things easier for the developer. Does it make things easy for all users of the site? Look at the source code of the page after it's loaded. ... <body> </body> </html> What would a screen reader user hear? Is this site accessible? Does anyone really care? Do sites like this point to a future where more and more web sites (not web apps) are built with Javascript frameworks? Is this a good thing? And can these sites acommodate all users? (Assuming they want to.)

krapp 12y ago
On the one hand, it might be kind of disingenuous for a site about the Meteor framework to not actually be running on that framework - but on the other, I think you're right. While most users in general (not necessarily most users considering Meteor) will have javascript on by default without ad-blockers running (and it won't be an issue) there doesn't appear to be any particular client benefit to rendering a simple site like this from js. >Do sites like this point to a future where more and more web sites (not web apps) are built with Javascript frameworks? The pendulum does seem to be swinging in that direction. But i've seen enough posts on HN about how client-side templating has gone too far and wrecked user experience, and about developers 'rediscovering' how robust simple html/css can be, to suspect that nothing is inevitable. Trends come and go and paradigms fall in and out of fashion.
toxicFork 12y ago
I try to approach things differently: why do people disable javascript? Is it because of security? There are ways to disable javascript only from third parties, for example, or disable certain functions (e.g. prevent alerts (natively in Chrome, or browsers extensions). Screen readers should be able to get the current state of the page, and not read from the 'source'. I can see some advantages of using javascript e.g. less load for the server to render things, it just becomes a directory host.
- skratlo 12y ago
  So when would you trigger the screen reader? When there is "enough content" rendered by JS? For sure not the way to go. Just dump Meteor, use React, there at least you can truly reuse the code and have it render server side.
jfaucett 12y ago
Usability for everyone is important but basically every modern webapp is not usuable if you disable javascript. Its akin to disabling X11 and trying to use a desktop app, maybe a few fallback to a console program you can use but not many. As for your other comments its like everything else you have your target users and you need to weigh the costs/benefits of having your app work for everyone vs. not at all for some users. If you're building an online mockup editor screen readers have zero importance, on the other hand if you're building a blog, screen readers might be very important. I think meteor does one thing quite well and thats make it easy to build "realtime webapps" i.e. webapps that have lots of user interaction/clicks, etc. This is not something you would use to build news site with lots of long text documents.
nhebb 12y ago
As a NoScript user I understand your point, but if screen readers can't handle dynamically generated content then they will need to evolve along with the rest of the web.
uptownJimmy 12y ago
Is "accessibility" a major concern for developers? Should it be? Did anybody ever stop to ask the masses of developers what they thought about it? And can anybody quote me the actual facts and figures around the oft-touted "need" for "accessibility"? Because I know it's supposed to be an important concern. But it isn't a concern, in fact, for anyone I know in the business.
ogig 12y ago
>What would a screen reader user hear? Is this site accessible? Does anyone really care? Screen readers do support JavaScript. While server side rendering is one of the features I most want in Meteor, the whole "screen readers can't javascript" is just wrong.

krapp 12y ago

On the one hand, it might be kind of disingenuous for a site about the Meteor framework to not actually be running on that framework - but on the other, I think you're right. While most users in general (not necessarily most users considering Meteor) will have javascript on by default without ad-blockers running (and it won't be an issue) there doesn't appear to be any particular client benefit to rendering a simple site like this from js. >Do sites like this point to a future where more and more web sites (not web apps) are built with Javascript frameworks? The pendulum does seem to be swinging in that direction. But i've seen enough posts on HN about how client-side templating has gone too far and wrecked user experience, and about developers 'rediscovering' how robust simple html/css can be, to suspect that nothing is inevitable. Trends come and go and paradigms fall in and out of fashion.

toxicFork 12y ago

I try to approach things differently: why do people disable javascript? Is it because of security? There are ways to disable javascript only from third parties, for example, or disable certain functions (e.g. prevent alerts (natively in Chrome, or browsers extensions). Screen readers should be able to get the current state of the page, and not read from the 'source'. I can see some advantages of using javascript e.g. less load for the server to render things, it just becomes a directory host.

skratlo 12y ago
So when would you trigger the screen reader? When there is "enough content" rendered by JS? For sure not the way to go. Just dump Meteor, use React, there at least you can truly reuse the code and have it render server side.

jfaucett 12y ago

Usability for everyone is important but basically every modern webapp is not usuable if you disable javascript. Its akin to disabling X11 and trying to use a desktop app, maybe a few fallback to a console program you can use but not many. As for your other comments its like everything else you have your target users and you need to weigh the costs/benefits of having your app work for everyone vs. not at all for some users. If you're building an online mockup editor screen readers have zero importance, on the other hand if you're building a blog, screen readers might be very important. I think meteor does one thing quite well and thats make it easy to build "realtime webapps" i.e. webapps that have lots of user interaction/clicks, etc. This is not something you would use to build news site with lots of long text documents.

nhebb 12y ago

As a NoScript user I understand your point, but if screen readers can't handle dynamically generated content then they will need to evolve along with the rest of the web.

uptownJimmy 12y ago

Is "accessibility" a major concern for developers? Should it be? Did anybody ever stop to ask the masses of developers what they thought about it? And can anybody quote me the actual facts and figures around the oft-touted "need" for "accessibility"? Because I know it's supposed to be an important concern. But it isn't a concern, in fact, for anyone I know in the business.

ogig 12y ago

>What would a screen reader user hear? Is this site accessible? Does anyone really care? Screen readers do support JavaScript. While server side rendering is one of the features I most want in Meteor, the whole "screen readers can't javascript" is just wrong.