Not choosing and inaccessible platform was the right thing to do. Hopefully this will make Automattic reconsider their priorities regarding web accessibility. Related write-up: https://adrianroselli.com/2020/09/gutenberg-accessibility-co...
Ironic that the link looks kinda... terrible. I can read it, but it's not pleasant at all.
On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
61–70 of 208 posts
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#62Glad they realized the issues of Wordpress but a shame they went with proprietary nonsense with a faux license. A php based platform has a lot of negatives for scalability. Using a cms to generate static content is much more simple, scalable and cheaper. Keep it simple.
WP is php, and it tends to take a ton of plugins of various quality, vendors and support to get it to where you want it. Last I looked at it, it didn’t even support multi-language out of the box.
Add to that the tendencies of many to use PHP directly as a way of cutting pages into non-modular non-composable pieces, that can only be concattenated instead of used everywhere, and add to that a mix of PHP, HTML, CSS and JS in the same file ... well you are set up for a catastrophe in terms of maintainability, which maps closely to how most plugins for WP are written.
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#63Not choosing and inaccessible platform was the right thing to do. Hopefully this will make Automattic reconsider their priorities regarding web accessibility. Related write-up: https://adrianroselli.com/2020/09/gutenberg-accessibility-co...
wat
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#64If it isn't prioritized by Automattic, it's not getting in.
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#65> The use of React complicates front-end build. We have very talented front-end developers, however, they are not React experts - nor should they need to be. > I believe front-end should be built as standards-compliant HTML/CSS with JavaScript used to enrich functionality where necessary and appropriate. This is what worries me about React (and with other front end frameworks in general). I'm writing this as someone…
Any “front end” HTML is generated via PHP. No relation to react :) indeed, most of the accessibility issues with WordPress are in gutenberg itself, not the front end content. (When I say front end, I mean stuff you would see browsing the site as a normal user.)
> are they being disenfranchised by the modern frameworks?
Though this isn’t exactly your point, this is brought up a lot in relation to gutenberg. The reason gutenberg needs something like react is because it needs to be a lot more powerful than a simple text form. And it needs to be a lot more powerful because many WordPress users struggled to accomplish anything other than basic text formatting in the classic editor. Gutenberg is moving a lot of disparate concepts under the same roof now, and it provides / will provide a uniform, standard way for editing many parts of your site.
While yes, this is a technology shift for developers (you need to be a lot more comfortable with JS to build tools for the editor), it’s still a big win for users who aren’t developers as they can accomplish much more with less effort and knowledge. Sure, some things might be a little more effort now than they were previously due to rough spots in the experience, but overall it unlocks a lot more functionality in the long run.
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#66> The use of React complicates front-end build. We have very talented front-end developers, however, they are not React experts - nor should they need to be. > I believe front-end should be built as standards-compliant HTML/CSS with JavaScript used to enrich functionality where necessary and appropriate. This is what worries me about React (and with other front end frameworks in general). I'm writing this as someone…
The trend is always to make every element of a document a component which is great for technical efficiency but removes a lot of flexibility. A document is still a good abstraction.
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#67Not choosing and inaccessible platform was the right thing to do. Hopefully this will make Automattic reconsider their priorities regarding web accessibility. Related write-up: https://adrianroselli.com/2020/09/gutenberg-accessibility-co...
“This post is only visible to RSS feed readers, unless you got here by manually parsing the feed (weirdo) or someone shared the link with you (they probably should not have).” wat
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#68Not choosing and inaccessible platform was the right thing to do. Hopefully this will make Automattic reconsider their priorities regarding web accessibility. Related write-up: https://adrianroselli.com/2020/09/gutenberg-accessibility-co...
“This post is only visible to RSS feed readers, unless you got here by manually parsing the feed (weirdo) or someone shared the link with you (they probably should not have).” wat
Re: On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
#69Glad they realized the issues of Wordpress but a shame they went with proprietary nonsense with a faux license. A php based platform has a lot of negatives for scalability. Using a cms to generate static content is much more simple, scalable and cheaper. Keep it simple.