News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by the_real_cher on Friday April 26, 2024 @09:25AM (#40169094)
Wouldn't raw html be better for accessibility than a JS framework? Saying this as a non-front end dev.
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by Conlectus on Friday April 26, 2024 @09:37AM (#40169220)
Raw HTML: potentially. Big blocks of undifferentiated ASCII art: no.
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by garfij on Friday April 26, 2024 @01:42PM (#40172134)

  aria-hidden=true
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by joemi on Friday April 26, 2024 @04:15PM (#40173722)
Not present on the page in question, though.
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by ivan_gammel on Friday April 26, 2024 @09:36AM (#40169215)
If done correctly it doesn’t matter. SSR can yield an accessible HTML page and you won’t notice the difference. Client-side JS can adapt the web site to your needs -a personalization that is hard to achieve in static.
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by marcosdumay on Friday April 26, 2024 @10:20AM (#40169800)
When was the last time... Or rather, when have you ever seen a framework-based page with accessibility done correctly?
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by ivan_gammel on Friday April 26, 2024 @10:57AM (#40170187)
I have seen many sites scoring well on various accessibility metrics. There’s no inherent technical limitation of frameworks that would make accessibility impossible, even when dealing with text to speech. We will see many more next year with EAA coming into effect (and many European companies do care about compliance).
Re:Cult of the Dead Cow – Veilid by jilijeanlouis on Saturday April 27, 2024 @03:31AM (#40178045)
Despite regulation I don’t Believe it will actually get implemented even governments have regulations around audio accessibility for education in particular, for years now, and still nothing moves.