Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebAssembly Studio

webassembly.studio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#221

Post by orestarod »

iratewizard wrote: post #205
josephg wrote: post #170

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.

In most matters, as in life too, you cannot win once and for all, only push through constantly or lose if you don't. Being vigilant at all times about a cause you think is important is usually the only way to go.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#223

Post by iratewizard »

josephg wrote: post #209
iratewizard wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm making up for fact that, but for a twist of fate, it could have been me sitting in that wheelchair. It could be me blind, browsing the web with a screen reader and a hope that the websites I visit aren't an incomprehensible mess of divs. Which only happens because somebody was too lazy to spend 5 minutes googling how to style a button with CSS. I believe its worth burning some of society's resources inefficiently…

Morons like you are why the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#224

Post by blunte »

dboreham wrote: post #75
blunte wrote: post #13

It would be nice if there was a no-javascript fallback - at least a message saying "This site only works with javascript enabled." If you have noscript, this site is completely blank until you enable a couple of things and reload.

Perhaps a missing browser feature? "You loaded a page with JS but you also disabled JS execution, so it probably won't work"

That would unfortunately be about as useful as the cookie notices - practically every website intentionally or unintentionally includes or references javascript in some way, so the browser would always give the notice.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#225

Post by zamadatix »

jablan wrote: post #157
zamadatix wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikeshedding about the best approach to making it accessible aside I think we all agree there was no out of the box button with the exact functionality and styling the project needed. Many ways to build such a thing but all of which require someone actually making the software that way as part of the project scope. Difficult? Not really. Priority to implement from day 1 in this project? Well that's what started the c…

How do you know what styling the project needed? What styling requires a button to stop being a button?

> How do you know what styling the project needed?

I don't know what the project needed but I'll assume the author of the dialog knew and didn't purposefully pick a harder way to do it that intentionally spited others rather picked the easiest way to meet the styling goals.

> What styling requires a button to stop being a button?

None, did anyone ever claim you can't style a button to be whatever you want with more effort?

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#226

Post by zamadatix »

Vinnl wrote: post #213
rhencke wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a serious suggestion. By working to understand and solve the problem that seems easy on its surface, either: 1. It ends up harder than it seems. The original poster gains a better understanding of what is preventing the originally proposed solution from working, and is in a better place to judge what needs changing, and generally everyone wins. 2. It ends up as easy as it seems. Not much time is spent, the ori…

I agree with 1 being possible, but if 2 is the case, then this will surely just be scratching the surface and it won't suddenly turn usable by fixing a single div.

The button can't both be an argument that the developer could have easily implemented accessibility and an argument that a it'd be a lot more work to implement accessibility in the same comment chain though.

Unless we're now talking about how to implement buttons for the sake of talking about buttons instead of the accessibility of this project in which case I don't think that's what the PR comment was intended to discuss, rather a PR to fix the actual accessibility issues the project was originally called out for.

I.e. if you think the scope of the should be bigger to address accessibility that doesn't make 2) invalid it just means you think it should be a larger PR.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#227

Post by Vinnl »

zamadatix wrote: post #226
Vinnl wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with 1 being possible, but if 2 is the case, then this will surely just be scratching the surface and it won't suddenly turn usable by fixing a single div.

The button can't both be an argument that the developer could have easily implemented accessibility and an argument that a it'd be a lot more work to implement accessibility in the same comment chain though. Unless we're now talking about how to implement buttons for the sake of talking about buttons instead of the accessibility of this project in which case I don't think that's what the PR comment was intended to di…

> The button can't both be an argument that the developer could have easily implemented accessibility and an argument that a it'd be a lot more work to implement accessibility in the same comment chain though.

Sure it can: it'd have been zero extra work if it had been done while writing the code in the first place, but having to do it afterwards means you'd practically have to rewrite the entire thing.

That said, I wouldn't argue that the developer could easily have implemented it, otherwise I'm sure they'd have done so. I'm only lamenting the fact that it wasn't, and that it now can't be solved with a single small PR.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#228

Post by josephg »

Vinnl wrote: post #212
josephg wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what other commenters have said, it sounds like the button is implemented in a custom react component. In that case ideally it should be as simple as changing the component to output a button instead of a div, with some css to remove the default button styling. Which would be the equivalent of translating a decent chunk of a website to French with one tiny change.

I'd be amazed if the only thing that makes the website inaccessible is the use of a single div instead of a button - that'd be an enormous oversight. As in, there's either a reason for it that does not make this an easy fix, or it's so trivial that it's not a mistake you make if you're the kind of developer that follows basic accessibility practices throughout the rest of the app.

Its usually not an all or nothing thing. Most websites aren't "inaccessible" entirely. They have some parts which work fine in screen readers and some parts which barely work at all, and which leave blind people muddling through. And they can muddle through a lot - blind people don't have much choice a lot of the time.

So incremental improvements like this can still be very helpful. You don't need to fix everything all at once.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#229

Post by dang »

iratewizard wrote: post #223
josephg wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm making up for fact that, but for a twist of fate, it could have been me sitting in that wheelchair. It could be me blind, browsing the web with a screen reader and a hope that the websites I visit aren't an incomprehensible mess of divs. Which only happens because somebody was too lazy to spend 5 minutes googling how to style a button with CSS. I believe its worth burning some of society's resources inefficiently…

Morons like you are why the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

If you keep breaking the site guidelines we are going to have to ban you. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.

Re: WebAssembly Studio

#230

Post by wlesieutre »

spicybright wrote: post #188
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I decided to make myself a personal website this summer, my goals were: • It has to have lots of custom animations, because animations are fun. • It has to work well in weird text-based browsers like Links, because being able to load my site up in those feels cool. • It has to support Safari 6, because that's the last version of Safari that works in Snow Leopard. If it's a non-commercial project, the goals can b…

Right? One of my peeves with a lot of developers is when they treat every programming project like it's a commercial start up. There's no reason "learning to implement custom buttons" can't be on your list of goals.

Depends on whether the idea behind "learn to implement custom buttons" is "because I want to have custom buttons on my website" or "because I want to be able to use this knowledge on future projects."

If you want to learn to make custom buttons with the idea being to be able to apply that knowledge elsewhere, you probably ought to learn to do them accessibly.

Post reply on HN