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

The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

blog.logrocket.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 271 posts

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#251

Post by hernytan »

deepakkarki wrote: post #53

It really annoys me when a site that just needs to display some text loads a whole react-redux framework. When it comes to reading text I honestly prefer the old school academic websites (albeit with a max-width set). Keeping stuff simple even makes maintaining the site simple, I personally run https://www.discoverdev.io and have used zero JavaScript. Inspired by brutalist design principles :)

Omg it's glorious. I've gotten so used to pages taking ages to load that your site seemed lightning fast by comparison

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#252

Post by pgl »

anarchy8 wrote: post #144
kgwxd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offer some kind of website hosting? I can't tell because the entire logrocket.com domain is blocked by "Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list" which I have enabled through uBlock Origin. Not sure if I turned on that list or if it's on by default. Either way, the only other site I've ever get that full domain block warning on is Facebook. I'm guessing they're up to some equally nefarious tracking tactics.

Peter Lowe's list is notoriously overzealous and it's enabled by default. It breaks countless websites and I found other lists to be better.

Notoriously overzealous? I try very hard to avoid false positives. Which sites does it break?

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#253

Post by pgl »

vanderZwan wrote: post #40
another-cuppa wrote: post #3

Posted on Medium with a massive pointless image at the top and page loaded asynchronously using JS.

When attempting to open the website I was greeted with: uMatrix has prevented the following page from loading: https://blog.logrocket.com/the-easiest-way-to-keep-your-web-apps-accessible-c2b57506cc2a I never blacklisted the website on uMatrix[0] myself so I checked the list of hosts files I'm using. It's apparently part of Peter Lowe’s Ad and Tracking Server List [1] [0] Obligatory "How do you know someone uses uMatr…

I added logrocket.com to the list after reading about how Roku uses it to track information about user networks, etc:

* https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/97an7p/ysk_r...

They also describe their service:

> LogRocket lets you replay what users do on your site

ie, they track everything you do when you visit a site using their service.

I've updated the entry to just block this instead:

    logs.logrocket.com
If you update your filter lists, you should be able to get to https://blog.logrocket.com/.

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#254

Post by adrianratnapala »

runarberg wrote: post #249
adrianratnapala wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but application developers have long faked it using GET .../thing?op=DELETE When you get sick of faking it you look into why there is no way to get browser to send real DELETEs and PUTs and w3c verbiage says "because application developers don't seem to need it" ... because they fake it ... because they have to fake it ... because browser don't do it ... because devs don't need it ...

I was gonna write a snarky comment about using a but apparently, the only methods allowed on a s and s are GET and POST. I wonder why these limitations. Especially since you can get past this with an: button.addEventHandler('click', () => { fetch('/path/to/resource', { method: 'DELETE' }) }); which seems way less accessible then to have the method there right there as an attribute.

Though as dragonwriter points out, using a button+POST to fake a delete is much better than using a link.

Api-wise that's a reason to mux your puts and deletes in the POST handler and not in the GET handler, since it force the HTML to use buttons rather than links that might get crawled.

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#255

Post by krychu »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #207
rayiner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that's why that happens. Why on earth would you break one of the most foundational aspects of HTML that way?

Off the top of my head, for one, because my HTML sits on top of a REST API and links can't hit a DELETE endpoint. I've no idea what people expect right clicking a delete link to open in a new tab to do?

I don’t see how deleting action is a link. Why not use a button which fires xhr and injects return message into the doc?

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#256

Post by GoToRO »

rayiner wrote: post #52
aidenn0 wrote: post #43

I'm still looking for "just use links". So many frontends I see use fancy onclicks to emulate links (including updating window.location). However they are either not links or are void links. This breaks all sorts of useful things (copy link location, open in new tab &c.).

So that's why that happens. Why on earth would you break one of the most foundational aspects of HTML that way?

One reason is that if you have a link, that link will be copied and sent. Then when the receiver clicks on it, the user has an expectation that they will see the same thing as the person that sent it. For the developer that means you have to recreate the state of the app, from the link. This further means that the link must contain all necessary data to do that and the developer has to write more code to recreate the state (sort order of a column in a table f.e.)

There are two choices: don't recreate the state -> people will call each other stupid over the phone because they see different things for the same link,

-or-

Recreate the state -> more money, more time,

-or-

Just don't have links at all. Which is what people usually choose because is faster and cheaper.

What changed was that before, "to do the right thing", i.e. have real links, was the easiest and the cheapest. Now to do the same, you need real developers. Even in Angular there is/was a discussion of where to put the state of the app in the url? put it in the path part of in the hash part? the difference being that the hash is not sent to server. So for search engines all those links are just one actually... Which is ironic because Angular is made by a search engine.

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#257

Post by runarberg »

adrianratnapala wrote: post #254
runarberg wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was gonna write a snarky comment about using a but apparently, the only methods allowed on a s and s are GET and POST. I wonder why these limitations. Especially since you can get past this with an: button.addEventHandler('click', () => { fetch('/path/to/resource', { method: 'DELETE' }) }); which seems way less accessible then to have the method there right there as an attribute.

Though as dragonwriter points out, using a button+POST to fake a delete is much better than using a link. Api-wise that's a reason to mux your puts and deletes in the POST handler and not in the GET handler, since it force the HTML to use buttons rather than links that might get crawled.

I still don’t understand why:
is better then:
When the former actually calls DELETE behind the scenes. I would think a crawler would prefer the latter, except for the fact that it is invalid (!)

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#258

Post by justsomedude43 »

petee wrote: post #232
justsomedude43 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, I just said "haha" and I got 5 downvotes in 20min. :)

because just saying haha adds nothing to the conversation. its just wasted time and space; this ain't reddit.

You mean like your comment?

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#259

Post by cs02rm0 »

ohazi wrote: post #208
cs02rm0 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head, for one, because my HTML sits on top of a REST API and links can't hit a DELETE endpoint. I've no idea what people expect right clicking a delete link to open in a new tab to do?

> I've no idea what people expect right clicking a delete link to open in a new tab to do? I expect it to issue the delete, and then dump the response to the delete into a new tab rather than navigating away from the page that hosts the delete link. There might be ten other delete links on the original page, and I don't want to delete-back-delete-back-delete-back, when I can just open all of them in a new tab, then g…

What if the response to the delete were a redirect back to the same page - would that be reasonable?

Re: The easiest way to keep your web apps accessible: Just use text

#260

Post by jscholes »

perlgeek wrote: post #189

> You use ALT text by adding the alt attribute with a value of the text equivalent of your image, like so: > https://example.com/image.png” alt=“developer in an office working feverishly to hit a deadline on a software project” /> Is this actually a good idea? This sounds like a typical "hero" or "teaser" image, to capture the reader's attention or interest. I don't think the alt tag does that in a comparable way, fo…

> It's really frustrating: all articles on accessibility mention the alt attribute, and that you should use them. But few give guidelines on how to write a good alt attribute that is actually well thought out.

You're not alone in feeling this frustration. In fact, this very article includes what I presume to be a screenshot of some code from the React docs. I have to presume that's what it is, because I'm a screen reader user and they haven't provided an alternative, screen reader-accessible version. Go figure.

Post reply on HN