React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React • Hacker News Board

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#31

Post by jameskerr » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 3:14 AM UTC

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #27

Why provide the Node component as a child and not a prop? Seems less intuitive to me.

The library I used for virtualization does this. https://react-window.vercel.app I just followed Brian's pattern. I think it looks nice.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#32

Post by chrismorgan » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 3:22 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #19

eurasiantiger wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! Don’t sweat not knowing, but without 100% accessibility coverage, the component might as well not exist — it could not be used in any publicly funded project in EU/USA or any commercial project in the EU, because it would be against the law to do so.

Nonsense. A deep study about web accessibility some 2 years ago revealed that 98.8% of web pages have accessibility issues. So saying "might as well not exist" is a dramatization of reality.

The significant majority of accessibility issues found by those sorts of large-range studies are comparatively minor, and often completely spurious. I have been decidedly unimpressed with every such study that I have delved into the results of.

(I know you’re arguing against someone claiming 100% accessibility coverage as a requirement, but I wanted to point out that figures like 98.8% are grossly inflated and quite meaningless.)

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#33

Post by searchableguy » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 5:28 AM UTC

jameskerr wrote: post #14

yuchi wrote: post #10

Very sad to discover that this is NOT a ready made component to display actual trees. What a deceitful name! Jokes apart, nice library. Will try it out sooner or later. May I suggest to not use children as the prop to Ps the Node component? Maybe a more explicit NodeComponent prop would have been better imho.

Dang it, I can see how the title was deceptive. This is headless component, leaving the markup and styling completely up to the user. Many of the tree components I looked at before building this didn't let me do exactly what I wanted with the style like this one does. However, I was thinking of shipping a default " " component that comes with some default styling to get people up and running quickly. I've just made a…

I think I would much prefer a documentation page going through styling the headless component vs ready made styled component with basic styles.

This is the approach used by most headless projects such has headless ui or radix.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#34

Post by searchableguy » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 5:32 AM UTC

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #27

Why provide the Node component as a child and not a prop? Seems less intuitive to me.

You can always set children in the component.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#35

Post by pjerem » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 6:23 AM UTC

yuchi wrote: post #10

Very sad to discover that this is NOT a ready made component to display actual trees. What a deceitful name! Jokes apart, nice library. Will try it out sooner or later. May I suggest to not use children as the prop to Ps the Node component? Maybe a more explicit NodeComponent prop would have been better imho.

> Very sad to discover that this is NOT a ready made component to display actual trees. What a deceitful name!

Hey, since you get to decide the structure yourself, I’m sure you could use that to draw a real tree using SVG.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#36

Post by jmiskovic » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 6:54 AM UTC

jluxenberg wrote: post #4

This is a great survey of the many ways trees can be used in UX: https://medium.com/@hagan.rivers/interaction-design-for-tree... My favorite is the Tree Table

Did you see this collection? https://treevis.net/

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#37

Post by eurasiantiger » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 8:30 AM UTC

lelandfe wrote: post #18

eurasiantiger wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! Don’t sweat not knowing, but without 100% accessibility coverage, the component might as well not exist — it could not be used in any publicly funded project in EU/USA or any commercial project in the EU, because it would be against the law to do so.

> without 100% accessibility coverage If that's the standard for open-source projects, it's a wonder any FE components get used

It is a legal requirement to provide equal access to all features and information for people who use accessibility features. Any non-trivial deviation from this must be declared in an accessibility statement, or the site owner risks legal action and large fines.

100% is not hyperbole, even though ”not exist” is.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#38

Post by eurasiantiger » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 8:33 AM UTC

fleddr wrote: post #19

eurasiantiger wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! Don’t sweat not knowing, but without 100% accessibility coverage, the component might as well not exist — it could not be used in any publicly funded project in EU/USA or any commercial project in the EU, because it would be against the law to do so.

Nonsense. A deep study about web accessibility some 2 years ago revealed that 98.8% of web pages have accessibility issues. So saying "might as well not exist" is a dramatization of reality.

Not all web pages are owned by public or commercial entities. Those that are were not under legal obligations two years ago, but are now or are in the grace period.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#39

Post by eurasiantiger » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 8:36 AM UTC

chrismorgan wrote: post #32

fleddr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. A deep study about web accessibility some 2 years ago revealed that 98.8% of web pages have accessibility issues. So saying "might as well not exist" is a dramatization of reality.

The significant majority of accessibility issues found by those sorts of large-range studies are comparatively minor, and often completely spurious. I have been decidedly unimpressed with every such study that I have delved into the results of. (I know you’re arguing against someone claiming 100% accessibility coverage as a requirement, but I wanted to point out that figures like 98.8% are grossly inflated and quite…

Those minor or spurious issues may well disable a disabled person even more.

That said, the entire accessibility scene is fundamentally broken on the technical side and full of snake oil salesmen on the business side.

Anxiously waiting for WCAG to finish an actual standard, and for vendors to actually implement it.

Re: React Arborist – A full-featured tree component for React

#40

Post by adeptima » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 8:55 AM UTC

Good efforts! Here's some quick feedback:

My first thought - how React Arborist is different from Ant Tree? https://ant.design/components/tree/

React Arborist dependencies looks sane https://github.com/brimdata/react-arborist/blob/main/package...

"memoize-one": "^6.0.0", "react-dnd": "^14.0.3", "react-dnd-html5-backend": "^14.0.1", "react-window": "^1.8.6"

However I was never a fan of react-dnd. Extremely hard to reason about react-dnd-html5-backend and spagetti code once you face edge scenarios.

Hard coded css means I need to fork the library

https://github.com/brimdata/react-arborist/blob/main/package...

  const style: CSSProperties = {
    position: "absolute",
    pointerEvents: "none",
    top: top - 2 + "px",
    left: treeView.indent + left + "px",
    right: treeView.indent + "px",
  };