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

41–50 of 387 posts

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#41

Post by cptskippy »

jcranmer wrote: post #27
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.

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 ).

Non-profits don't necessarily sell anything but they've been sued by the ADA for violating the laws on accessibility.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#42

Post by iso1631 »

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…

> so many things are designed and tested by people on T1 broadband in a downtown office

I wish. A T1 is 1.5mbit. CNN's front page is 6MB - 30 seconds at full T1 bandwidth.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#43

Post by bachmeier »

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!

Unless there's a law I haven't heard of (definitely a possibility) it would be necessary to classify it as a commerce site for the law to apply.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#44

Post by wikibob »

cptskippy wrote: post #41
jcranmer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ).

Non-profits don't necessarily sell anything but they've been sued by the ADA for violating the laws on accessibility.

ADA is the American disabilities act, it can’t sue anyone.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#45

Post by MaxBarraclough »

> I asked about the PSP – a hand-me-down from an older brother – and the web browser. Her reply was “It’s shit. But it worked.”

This is particularly high praise for simple HTML as the shit part is likely the PSP's UI, which is of course out of the control of the website, whereas the it worked part is due to the PSP's browser and the website both working adequately.

Good on GOV.UK for doing it properly.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#46

Post by ratww »

pbronez wrote: post #38
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…

Are there any automated ways to assess a web product against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)? This should really be part of the CI/CD process.

There's a Firefox/Chrome extension called Axe that's pretty good. We use at my company it to make our products accessible and it helped us tremendously.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools/

[2] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe-web-accessibil...

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#47

Post by alecst »

apabepa wrote: post #19

I am not a front-end developer but looking at it from a distance I really don't get modern web design. Sure some sites might need fancy javascript single page features, like if your webpage is an interactive map or realtime game, but most sites are just text and some pictures. Whats with all the javascript? Your site looks just like the next one anyway! It feels like an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation or maybe more…

I agree with you. It definitely does not serve the user. I have two thoughts, as a nobody.

1. Ads/trackers/etc. need javascript 2. It's a way of flexing and saying "we have resources to put into this webpage which makes us a serious business."

Any other thoughts?

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#49

Post by kstrauser »

flemhans wrote: post #30
another-dave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's still 1.544Mbps. That use to mean you were at a university or something, but now seems to mean you can't get DSL in your area.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#50

Post by tingletech »

pbronez wrote: post #38
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…

Are there any automated ways to assess a web product against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)? This should really be part of the CI/CD process.

our web team wanted this in the CI/CD https://allyjs.io

edit: actually it's spelled https://pa11y.org

Post reply on HN