81–90 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly does "semantically meaningful and accessible html" mean?
As an example: Consider using a vs using . The tag is semantic and meaningful, whereas the means nothing. A screen reader (or other markup interpreters) can’t tell what a means
Context: I like the Bloomberg site and their drop-down menu is cool. Purely as a challenge, I set out to mimick the styles and behaviour of that menu without using JavaScript and trying to keep the HTML/CSS as minimal as possible. Their menu widget does not work if you switch of JS (but this was not a motivation for me to make this). Tested on IE 11, Edge 12, latest Chrome stable and Firefox dev on Windows 10. Source…
Also, and I realize this was just for fun, making it responsive would be a nice touch. For example, force the right col under col 1 and col 2 below a certain width. That's easy and I think more people are likely to find the example more useful.
Otherwise, sweet! Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is solved by tracking the mouse movement and holding the current menu open if the movement is at a specific angle Was it Amazon that first used this trick on their giant dropdown menus? I remember reading an article about their implementation but do not recall if they were the first or merely the most visible.
No. Mac OS had it.
I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not be deluded into thinking that the Chrome is a lightweight nothing without JS execution. There are already GPU-aided reflow/repaint operations, your whole UI context lives on a different thread, tons of services are pulled back for audio/video capabilities, not to mention addons, HTML engine, etc.
So just learn proper JS, do not overdo it, and write efficient scripts. Its doable.
I really, really do not get this obsession with Javascriptless interactivity. I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not be deluded into thinking that the Chrome is a lightweight nothing without JS execution. There are already GPU-aided reflow/repaint operations, your whole UI context lives on a different thread, tons of services are pulled back for audio/video capabilities, not…
I really, really do not get this obsession with Javascriptless interactivity. I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not be deluded into thinking that the Chrome is a lightweight nothing without JS execution. There are already GPU-aided reflow/repaint operations, your whole UI context lives on a different thread, tons of services are pulled back for audio/video capabilities, not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one, many people prefer to browse websites with javascript turned off. Aside from performance benefits, you turn off user tracking, flashy ads, autoplay videos, annoying popovers, etc.
MANY people? Source?
only one person blocks JS: false
therefore many block JS
I really, really do not get this obsession with Javascriptless interactivity. I mean, seriously. Its 2018. JS engines are REALLY fast. And by the way, lets not be deluded into thinking that the Chrome is a lightweight nothing without JS execution. There are already GPU-aided reflow/repaint operations, your whole UI context lives on a different thread, tons of services are pulled back for audio/video capabilities, not…
What's the point of your comment? If you can do the same thing without JavaScript or with, the implementation that doesn't use JavaScript is categorically preferable.
The Web royally screwed UI development and standards to Hell's basement, and nobody seems to want to fix it because the current mess is job security for low-level DOM diddlers.