Write HTML Like It's 1999 • Hacker News Board

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#21

Post by elygre » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #13

Causality1 wrote: post #5

My God that page is beautiful. Over half the vertical space is content without me touching anything. No banner bar asking me to install some bullshit mobile app. No 800-pixel panel at the bottom telling me what a cookie is. No incredibly obnoxious warning that I only have one more free article before the wisdom of the ages is lost to me so I'd better cough up five bucks.

Interesting, it is mostly whitespace for me. Maybe because of my large monitor?

There is whitespace on the sides, but the vertical space is mostly content. No?

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#22

Post by LocalH » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #18

I've never understood the purpose of "semantic" html. It seems to be bandied about as some sort of unquestioned good, but why? If the code is easy to understand who cares that the "correct" tags have been used? Obviously there are some benefits for screen readers and search engines, but these uses should be explicitly checked for as part of a QA process instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness.

When done properly, it increases the separation between the actual content, and the styling on top of it. Any time you get closer to that ideal separation, accessibility is enhanced (and it’s also forward-thinking towards yet-unknown methods of accessibility assistance).

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#23

Post by detaro » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #18

I've never understood the purpose of "semantic" html. It seems to be bandied about as some sort of unquestioned good, but why? If the code is easy to understand who cares that the "correct" tags have been used? Obviously there are some benefits for screen readers and search engines, but these uses should be explicitly checked for as part of a QA process instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness.

Not sure why you'd think semantic HTML is for people reading the code?

It's for software reading the page and making use of the extra information, e.g. a screen reader being able to tell a user that there's a navigation element on the site and being able to jump there. Reader modes knowing what the main article on the page is. ...

(EDIT: I see you edited that point in, so yes, that's the main one, and IMHO a good enough one)

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#24

Post by krapp » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

justjonathan wrote: post #8

It is embarrassing, but I only know how to write HTML like it’s 1999. The last new thing I learned was an iframe, the kids tell me CSS something I should learn...

I legitimately remember the day I first saw an iframed site and how cool I thought it was.

God I'm old.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#25

Post by burgerzzz » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

Don't get me wrong, I used to write as semantic HTML as I could; nav for navigations, table for table's, aside for well asides, etc as the author suggests, but ultimately it just really doesn't matter. nav and div render exactly the same. In fact, I find zero value in using ul/li's for lists that aren't bulleted. I know it's an unordered list of items, but really, what _is_ the value in writing semantic HTML if the devs/browser/users don't care or know the difference? Especially if you're changing the "semantic" element's default behavior in order to get a look and feel or behavior that is far from the original "semantic" intent.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#26

Post by im3w1l » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #10

justjonathan wrote: post #8

It is embarrassing, but I only know how to write HTML like it’s 1999. The last new thing I learned was an iframe, the kids tell me CSS something I should learn...

nah, newfangled stuff, cross browser compatability issues, not worth it - it won't catch on

Keeping up is an endless treadmill. If your primary work is in some other domain, say backend infra or some non-coding profession that writes a line every blue moon, the investment may not pay off.

If you are a front-end dev it's of course a no-brainer to keep up.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#27

Post by wongarsu » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #18

I've never understood the purpose of "semantic" html. It seems to be bandied about as some sort of unquestioned good, but why? If the code is easy to understand who cares that the "correct" tags have been used? Obviously there are some benefits for screen readers and search engines, but these uses should be explicitly checked for as part of a QA process instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness.

If you do semantic html vaguely right (using for buttons, for table, for input fields) you have something you know will work decently on screen readers, plugin and other assistive technology (which includes password managers in the case of login forms, etc).

If you don't follow semantic html at all I don't see how QA can safe you, except for QA telling you to fix that by replacing it with a (or , or or whatever you prefer).

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#28

Post by jagger27 » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #5

My God that page is beautiful. Over half the vertical space is content without me touching anything. No banner bar asking me to install some bullshit mobile app. No 800-pixel panel at the bottom telling me what a cookie is. No incredibly obnoxious warning that I only have one more free article before the wisdom of the ages is lost to me so I'd better cough up five bucks.

And the font is really lovely. I thought it was San Francisco at first, but it's Inter.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#29

Post by woah » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #22

woah wrote: post #18

I've never understood the purpose of "semantic" html. It seems to be bandied about as some sort of unquestioned good, but why? If the code is easy to understand who cares that the "correct" tags have been used? Obviously there are some benefits for screen readers and search engines, but these uses should be explicitly checked for as part of a QA process instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness.

When done properly, it increases the separation between the actual content, and the styling on top of it. Any time you get closer to that ideal separation, accessibility is enhanced (and it’s also forward-thinking towards yet-unknown methods of accessibility assistance).

IMO this is an example of extreme overengineering and premature optimization. Unstyled html is so ugly and inconsistent across browsers that it’s just not a realistic scenario that it would be consumed without the css and js that make up the rest of the code.

When an alternate display method comes out and wants my semantic html, I will add it to my QA workflow and make sure that it looks good instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness from one of many bloggers.

Re: Write HTML Like It's 1999

#30

Post by detaro » Sat, Jun 08, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

burgerzzz wrote: post #25

Don't get me wrong, I used to write as semantic HTML as I could; nav for navigations, table for table's, aside for well asides, etc as the author suggests, but ultimately it just really doesn't matter. nav and div render exactly the same. In fact, I find zero value in using ul/li's for lists that aren't bulleted. I know it's an unordered list of items, but really, what _is_ the value in writing semantic HTML if the d…

Ever tried to use your pages with a screen reader? It's quite an interesting (and potentially maddening - screen readers are power-user tools, and quite difficult to get into if that's not how you normally operate) exercise.