Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, per MDN: > When multiple is specified, most browsers will show a scrolling list box instead of a single line dropdown. This is not “dropdown with multiselect” because it doesn’t “drop down”
Tough shit? It does what you want. It doesn't have to look like what you want.
WebAssembly Studio
161–170 of 231 posts
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why assume ignorance/difficulty when the reality is not everyone is going to focus on adding/maintaining accessibility when they haven't even built out their beta MIT licensed side project? It'd certainly be nice if everything just automagically worked about accessible UI but we're not there yet (getting anything to automagically work in UI is a pain still). As far as what we can do about it I suppose outside of some…
> Why assume ignorance/difficulty when the reality is not everyone is going to focus on adding/maintaining accessibility when they haven't even built out their beta MIT licensed side project? Yep as someone who's done a significant amount of front-end development ARIA and accessibility is more billable hours, more time involved into project, and more testing. When it's my own consulting I literally add it as a line-i…
Take note, the takeaway from this comment is that if you're building a platform for applications and you want to make it accessible, it has to be required. You can't give engineers the choice or they won't do it. They will not prioritize equal access unless either the law or the technology literally forces them to. This kind of stuff is how you get regulated.
This is also why I don't have a ton of sympathy for the people who want to get rid of HTML and use exclusively lower level APIs. They'll tell you they can replicate accessibility features, but they're not going to. They're going to open up the floodgate for interfaces that can't be used with a keyboard. Like, I'm not seriously suggesting this, but maybe divs in HTML shouldn't be clickable at all. Maybe you should be forced to use a button. Maybe the escape hatches that allow people to ignore semantic markup should go away.
I want to live in a world where I can trust developers when they say that the web is for everyone and that equal access is important, and I want to trust them to make educated decisions about what is and isn't possible to make accessible for each project. But if we can't even get people to use buttons instead of divs, if even that turns into some kind of controversy... I don't know, maybe developers shouldn't get to make that choice, maybe the web should force you to use buttons.
The whole point of the web is that it's a universal platform, as much as possible we should be striving to make it universally accessible.
> The other problem is I do accessibility right
We're not talking about something like adding professional captions to every single video you produce or making sure that there are shortcuts to quick-navigate through menus, we're talking about building buttons using the element named "button".
Accessibility isn't binary, we don't have to decide to either do professional testing or to render everything to canvas. It really doesn't take firing up a screenreader to know that a clickable div with no aria roles is not accessible, you don't have to do advanced testing for that.
I'm not going to jump on the shame train for the original author, not everyone knows this stuff and I don't blame the author for making a mistake. I don't expect every web developer to know everything, and shaming people over accidentally breaking accessibility isn't helpful for the cause. Instead we should focus on education and positive reinforcement. We don't want new developers to be scared of accessibility, we want them to feel like we're here to help.
But outside of the original developer, I am absolutely going to jump on the shame train for everyone who's talking about very basic web accessibility features like they're some kind of complicated tradeoff. They're not. Using a button is not hard.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 90s called. They want their RAD tools back.
Let’s get them on the phone and negotiate a joint-custody deal, then, because I feel like RAD has only gone downhill since then. Thinking back to how easy it is to open up VB5, drag-and-drop a UI, and ship an .exe that anyone could run (yes, because of MS’s OS monopoly, but still), the current mess required to build a similarly complex app for the web feels like a serious regression.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the decision comes down to "I can't get the exact shade of cornflower blue I want on this button unless I make it a div, but that will hurt accessibility" and you chose the exact shade of cornflower blue, your priorities are wrong. And not just because you hurt accessibility, but because you probably made more work for yourself. We went through this 15 years ago with custom scroll bars that didn't look like scroll…
I don't think that's a conscious decision though. What happens is: - I can't get this exact shade of cornflower blue - Oh, here's a solution that works! Oh, it doesn't work in all browsers - Hmm, here's a stack overflow answer that says use a div. It's 5 years old, is that current? Dunno but it has 457 up votes and works Some people are concerned about accessibility but the JavaScript doesn't work in iOS. Others have…
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#165The "Create New Project" dialog has serious accessibility problems when used with a screen reader. The buttons are clickable divs, not actual HTML buttons or even marked up with proper ARIA. I haven't yet ventured any further into the app. Given that the app is a WebAssembly development environment, my first guess was that it was built in WebAssembly itself, with a custom UI framework. But in fact, it's plain React,…
Why don't you start with opening an issue on their Github first? And maybe contribute the code yourself since you feel so strongly about it.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tough shit? It does what you want. It doesn't have to look like what you want.
Your extreme stance is not helping the cause. I recognize, for instance, that the HTML select element, with its current limitations, is unsuitable for some real-world use cases. We shouldn't tell application developers that they're wrong to need something more complex than what the NCSA Mosaic team (edit: or maybe Netscape) defined in the 90s. We need to meet developers where they are and make it as easy as possible…
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#167The "Create New Project" dialog has serious accessibility problems when used with a screen reader. The buttons are clickable divs, not actual HTML buttons or even marked up with proper ARIA. I haven't yet ventured any further into the app. Given that the app is a WebAssembly development environment, my first guess was that it was built in WebAssembly itself, with a custom UI framework. But in fact, it's plain React,…
Do development tools really need a11y? I haven't come across anyone with this need before.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tough shit? It does what you want. It doesn't have to look like what you want.
It doesn’t do “what I want”, it’s completely unsuitable for most of the use cases I’ve run into. Additionally, this sort of response will never work with a product manager or ux designer.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
But muh ableist design preferences....
Please avoid this kind of unconstructive snark. I'm prone to it myself when discussing this subject, but I try to avoid it when discussing accessibility with a broad audience like HN. I want to meet mainstream developers where they are, figure out what prevents them from making their applications accessible, and do something about it, not just guilt-trip them.
As pointed out up thread, developers and designers often skip using because it is hard to style just right. Using appearance:none resets the style but not the accessibility behavior.
Re: WebAssembly Studio
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goals of the project includes "custom buttons"? There's so much functionality that you get for free/low effort if you don't feel the need to customize everything to the nines.
I don't understand this entitled attitude. The OP can build things however they want. If their style of building makes it hard for the 0.05% of internet traffic that uses a screen reader, it's not open season to be a shitty person. If I were the OP and received feedback like this, I'd personally start aria describing how you all need a better mix of anti-anxiety and antidepressants.
I see your point - this website is really cool and its classic HN to have the top comment complain about a minor point. But also, because accessibility and security are invisible to most of us, vigilance is the only way it’ll happen.