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

Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

jvns.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 435 posts

Re: Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

#61

Post by hidelooktropic »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #51
TonyAlicea10 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about "purity/correctness" it's about the real experience of a blind person. Accessibility means caring about the HTML. Your comment only mentions developers as the audience of HTML authoring, as opposed to users, which is a common attitude and the core problem with Tailwind.

But why would I spend any time mastering this skill when we have AI now? Disability software that uses both the markup and the on-screen visual for decision making is likely imminent and would render most of this no longer necessary. Claude Cowork is already doing navigation and web browsing by screenshot showing this is possible.

I guarantee you no one is working on this.

Re: Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

#64

Post by u_fucking_dork »

timr wrote: post #42
JimDabell wrote: post #27

One thing that has always struck me about Tailwind is that practically every argument its proponents use more or less boils down to “I never learnt CSS beyond a junior level” . It’s super common to hear Tailwind advocates say things like “Without Tailwind, we would just have one big disorganised CSS file that always grows uncontrollably and ends up with loads of obsolete stuff in it and !important everywhere! Tailwin…

It's worse than that; the common arguments for Tailwind literally derive from total ignorance of how CSS is made to work, and a disposal of guidelines that developers would worship in any other context (i.e. Don't Repeat Yourself). It's really frustrating to be talking with someone about Tailwind and CSS, and realize that not only do they not know what "cascading" means, they never even considered the concept might b…

The common arguments against Tailwind usually derive from total ignorance of working with CSS on large scale projects with many team members.

And when this is pointed out you’ll usually get replies that just hand wave it away as not a problem, as if things like BEM were invented for no reason.

Re: Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

#67

Post by well_ackshually »

0x3f wrote: post #46
reaperducer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them. Not good enough. You have to be accessible before it is needed in order to avoid legal liability. And how do you expect to get a blind user if they already cannot use your product? None of the doctors I build web sites for are currently blind. I know this because I talk to them regularly. But I still build the web sites fo…

Sounds like you're kind of just talking your book though. Person who makes accessible sites suggests you need an accessible site. Blind people aren't the only ones who might need modifications. You could have an infinitely long list of adjustments for all kinds of disabilities, and tell me I'm lazy for not doing each of them. Why are blind people special?

You are lazy for not doing accessibility adjustments, because accessibility isn't for blind users. It's for the deaf ones, the ones with poor eyesight, the ones with mental deficiencies, the ones with motor issues like Parkinson's, the ones browsing your site shitfaced at 4AM, and so on and so on.

Accessibility isn't a checklist to cover your ass for a percentage of the population: it's for everyone. It literally makes your website less shit. You slapping an aria-label doesn't fix things.

Re: Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

#68

Post by 0x3f »

well_ackshually wrote: post #67
0x3f wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're kind of just talking your book though. Person who makes accessible sites suggests you need an accessible site. Blind people aren't the only ones who might need modifications. You could have an infinitely long list of adjustments for all kinds of disabilities, and tell me I'm lazy for not doing each of them. Why are blind people special?

You are lazy for not doing accessibility adjustments, because accessibility isn't for blind users. It's for the deaf ones, the ones with poor eyesight, the ones with mental deficiencies, the ones with motor issues like Parkinson's, the ones browsing your site shitfaced at 4AM, and so on and so on. Accessibility isn't a checklist to cover your ass for a percentage of the population: it's for everyone. It literally mak…

Every moment you spend doing accessibility is a moment you spend not doing other things. You could argue it has a high RoI to do accessibility, fine, but that doesn't make it lazy _not_ to do it. Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.

Re: Moving away from Tailwind, and learning to structure my CSS

#70

Post by timr »

u_fucking_dork wrote: post #64
timr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that; the common arguments for Tailwind literally derive from total ignorance of how CSS is made to work, and a disposal of guidelines that developers would worship in any other context (i.e. Don't Repeat Yourself). It's really frustrating to be talking with someone about Tailwind and CSS, and realize that not only do they not know what "cascading" means, they never even considered the concept might b…

The common arguments against Tailwind usually derive from total ignorance of working with CSS on large scale projects with many team members. And when this is pointed out you’ll usually get replies that just hand wave it away as not a problem, as if things like BEM were invented for no reason.

Yeah, that's a straw-man. I've worked on large-scale projects with many team members, and it's perfectly possible to use CSS as it was designed.

But sure, like most tools, it starts with understanding how it works.

Post reply on HN