201–210 of 231 posts
Something similar but also totally different is https://makepad.nl/ - a graphics programming IDE in Rust, for Rust, targeting the browser. It's a totally different use case but there's some similarities, somehow, anyway. Unlike this app, its actually all WASM and the author frequently tweets about how he feels more productive building a web UI in Rust than he would HTML+CSS+JS. And you can say what you want, the thin…
Earlier 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? 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…
> I literally add it as a line-item to the bill and let customers take it off if they want to save cost, and when it's for professional work the only industry that has actual regulation around it is education/government. 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…
Most developers only get to make that choice as long as visibility over their work is shitty enough that any time spent on accessibility is lost in the noise.
The button stuff is one of the few things that could (and should) just be done by default, because it doesn't take any extra effort like a lot of accessibility work. But then again, most devs are working in environments where whatever they would just make a plain old button gets loved to death by some design genius with nothing better to do that week and "signed off on" by 15 people before the dev even hears about it. Then they're making a quick decision between throwing accessibility under the bus (and suffering absolutely zero consequences for it) or pissing off literally everyone that has anything to do with their next round of performance reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me that finds all the text rendering on this page really bad?
Everything is rendered directly to a canvas, at the very least it lacks subpixel rendering
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I literally add it as a line-item to the bill and let customers take it off if they want to save cost, and when it's for professional work the only industry that has actual regulation around it is education/government. 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…
> 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 t…
In the business environment you're talking about, I'm generally not in favor of legislating things, but maybe that's a requirement here. My point is that assuming what folkhack says is true, then the "we'll just educate people" idea might just not be feasible -- maybe it just straight up requires laws that force businesses to care.
At least for websites in general we can do things outside of the law that force people's hands. Google can deprioritize search results for pages that are inaccessible, but that won't really affect web apps. Maybe there are non-legislative technological penalties we could impose there as well; if there are certain things that only buttons can do, or if browsers start identifying pages/apps that are inaccessible and displaying warnings on them, or locking certain features.
SSL didn't really get solved until browsers started putting a big scary warning next to the URL bar that said the page was insecure. All the education and tooling was helpful, but it wasn't enough to make businesses care until their customers started asking them why Chrome/Firefox was saying that their app was insecure. It's tricky. I don't want the accessibility community to be the villain here, but it does kind of sound like commercial businesses need to be dragged into an accessible world even if they're kicking and screaming about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you think buildings shouldn’t be wheelchair accessible, because not many people are wheelchair bound? Most western societies have made the decision culturally that even though its disproportionately expensive, that the cost is worth spending to (as much as is reasonable) make things accessible. (Legislators are on board in many countries too.) I see your point - this website is really cool and its classic HN to ha…
Businesses should choose to make their business accessible based on cost and profitability. Your eternal vigilance is a joke. It makes sane people wonder what shortcoming you're compensating for.
Earlier 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…
Exactly this. Yes, accessibility is very important, but as of right now, it takes non-zero effort to implement correctly. So you must balance that with other priorities depending on the goals of the project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For one, no one needs to install WASM, nor are they going to run into versioning issues because the OS has a hard dependency on it. Every single person with a computer, from a smart phone to render farm workstations, will have WASM support because those devices will have a browser. The only browser that doesn't support it is the legacy IE line of browsers, of which only 11 is still supported, and which only runs on s…
Unless your user is using a iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me that finds all the text rendering on this page really bad?
Everything is rendered directly to a canvas, at the very least it lacks subpixel rendering
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think buildings shouldn’t be wheelchair accessible, because not many people are wheelchair bound? Most western societies have made the decision culturally that even though its disproportionately expensive, that the cost is worth spending to (as much as is reasonable) make things accessible. (Legislators are on board in many countries too.) I see your point - this website is really cool and its classic HN to ha…
> Do you think buildings shouldn’t be wheelchair accessible, because not many people are wheelchair bound? Businesses should choose to make their business accessible based on cost and profitability. Your eternal vigilance is a joke. It makes sane people wonder what shortcoming you're compensating for.
I believe its worth burning some of society's resources inefficiently in exchange for evening out the scales of chance a little. Its the same reason I think everyone has a right to free healthcare. (Which is completely non-controversial here in australia.)
Call me names all day if you need to. I stand by my politics.
Anyone have a guess as to when WebAssembly will be able to directly access the DOM?
Despite all the hype, I don't think this will ever realistically happen. interface-types is (supposedly) here but it can't really hold onto DOM objects, it can only reference them, and nobody has made DOM bindings for interface-types yet. GC is an extraordinarily hard problem, and they've talked about scoping out "mini-mini-MVPs" for about a year now, with basically no progress. I wrote an essay about this a few year…
However given the possible security issues, even with a sandbox, maybe that isn't that bad.