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

The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 387 posts

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#21

Post by recursive »

ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law. Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business.

This seems to imply that web sites are businesses. If my hobby sites are subject to this, I'm going to be in trouble.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#23

Post by rstupek »

arcturus17 wrote: post #15
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law > Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business For a business like a coffee shop I'd imagine that accessibility is codified in law through things like building regulations (ie, you must have n disabled parking spots per square foot, a disabled toilet, etc) Is there an equivalent legally codi…

There is not a codified standard however that doesn't stop websites from being sued

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#24

Post by udia »

arcturus17 wrote: post #15
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law > Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business For a business like a coffee shop I'd imagine that accessibility is codified in law through things like building regulations (ie, you must have n disabled parking spots per square foot, a disabled toilet, etc) Is there an equivalent legally codi…

I have had a lot of success with this course (Web Accessibility, by Google): https://www.udacity.com/course/web-accessibility--ud891

> In this course you’ll get hands-on experience making web applications accessible. You’ll understand when and why users need accessibility. Then you’ll dive into the "how": making a page work properly with screen readers, and managing input focus (e.g. the highlight you see when tabbing through a form.) You’ll understand what "semantics" and "semantic markup" mean for web pages and add ARIA markup to enable navigating the interface with a range of assistive devices. Finally, you’ll learn styling techniques that help users with partial vision navigate your pages easily and reliably.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#25

Post by ogre_codes »

arcturus17 wrote: post #15
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law > Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business For a business like a coffee shop I'd imagine that accessibility is codified in law through things like building regulations (ie, you must have n disabled parking spots per square foot, a disabled toilet, etc) Is there an equivalent legally codi…

> Is there an equivalent legally codified and enforceable standard for the web?

More or less yes. The link I posted has a few good resources, but generally speaking sites need to work with a screen reader and they need to be accessible via the keyboard (which by extension enables other accessibility devices).

This site has some more guidelines. https://www.essentialaccessibility.com/blog/ada-guidelines

Generally speaking, if you start with existing components that do the thing you want done, you have a huge leg up. If you try to reinvent the wheel, you are likely in for a lot of trouble. The more complex the control, the harder it is to roll your own. Calendar controls and Selects are particularly tough to get right.

UPDATE: Also, the wc3 has some good guidelines which should cover your ass.

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#26

Post by ogre_codes »

recursive wrote: post #21
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law. Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business. This seems to imply that web sites are businesses. If my hobby sites are subject to this, I'm going to be in trouble.

One of the big linked sites was Beyonce's web site.

How big an issue this is depends largely on how big your hobby site is.

Update: I think this might even be wrong, its likely personal sites are fine. It's still good practice though!

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#27

Post by jcranmer »

recursive wrote: post #21
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law. Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business. This seems to imply that web sites are businesses. If my hobby sites are subject to this, I'm going to be in trouble.

If you're not selling anything, then you're not engaged in commerce and you wouldn't qualify as a "public accommodation" and the law doesn't kick in for you.

(Complete list of public accommodation is 24 USC §12181(7)--https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181).

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#28

Post by recursive »

elliekelly wrote: post #18
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

> Very few people have the skill to turn a div into an effective button, yet over and over I see web sites with rows of buttons which are in fact just divs with javascript behind them. What was the catalyst behind this trend? I just don’t understand the reason behind it. Hasn’t been around forever? Was there some limitation on the button tag that made the div tag more desirable?

My guess is that some learn react et al without ever really learning HTML first.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#29

Post by recursive »

ogre_codes wrote: post #26
recursive wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making your site accessible isn't just a good practice, in the US, it is the law. Courts have rules that the ADA applies to web sites along with any other type of business. This seems to imply that web sites are businesses. If my hobby sites are subject to this, I'm going to be in trouble.

One of the big linked sites was Beyonce's web site. How big an issue this is depends largely on how big your hobby site is. Update: I think this might even be wrong, its likely personal sites are fine. It's still good practice though!

The size of any of my sites is well below 1 milli-Beyonce.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#30

Post by flemhans »

another-dave wrote: post #11
antihero wrote: post #4

Different solutions for different problems. You have a different design requirement when you are designing something for use by the most vulnerable and those without access to reasonable technology. This absolutely needs to be factored in when choosing how to build something, however, this is a tiny subset of users, and this is for essential life-is-in-the-balance types of service. The vast majority of users will hav…

I don't think the problem is that niche though. Even outside of accessibility concerns, there are plenty of times I've tried to use websites on smartphones within intermittent internet access — e.g. on the London underground checking in to a flight on the way to the airport or ordering a pizza when coming home late from work. In both scenarios, I'm trying to complete my task as quickly as possible while I still have…

Sidetrack: Is T1 still ~1.5 Mbps or is it referring to something more modern nowadays?
Post reply on HN