"I'm super ignorant about accessibility, but I heard this one time. Here, accessibility experts, I googled this link for you. Should be easy to implement."
I'm sure they're more expert at accessibility than I am, but the article complained that they were not very expert at React. I'm not that great at React either but I get by.
At any rate I'm sure that nothing I have ever worked on is as accessible as anything you have ever worked on just because what are the odds that I could have been part of anything worthwhile and what are the odds you are not just an amazing genius dropping by to let me know it? Pretty slim I bet.
in fact, you seem somewhat rude - are we acquaintances in some way?
But that's kind of a bad approach for developing software. "Sorry, handicapped person, you don't get the new hotness. But it's ok, you can continue using this old software that we super-duper promise to continue supporting."
Microsoft Outlook for Enterprises does that; it has a “lite” mode which is for people with older browsers, older computers, or have accessibility needs. However, my reasoning is a bit flawed as just because Microsoft does it doesn’t mean it’s correct.
I've been recommending my clients avoid using it for minimum 6 months post "release" regardless of accessibility.
Gutenberg has been changing constantly. When it's "released" it should only be released as a final version to developers, meaning they're no longer changing it, before being released to the public.
I've known a few people who've developed Gutenberg compatible plugins, only to have it break 2 weeks later when an "update" arrived. "Update" meaning "it's been redone entirely different".
It's been noted elsewhere here - use the official "classic editor". Gutenberg offers ZERO benefits. It's simply a different way of accomplising the same tasks.
1. A React app is still DOM-based. Normal accessibility practices still apply, as they do for any other SPAs
2. It takes maybe a week to learn enough of JSX and React to get started on accessibility tasks
This sounds like refusing to work on a new codebase without actually being invested into it. Also got a combative feeling from reading a few PRs, where simple style issues are discussed at length vs just fixed with one variable change. Am I reading it wrong?
Exactly! They spent time and energy on this new codebase without gaining consensuses on the value of the new codebase and without giving their accessibility experts reasons to feel invested. And without investing in training them.
Why is user experience and accessibility always someone else's problem? Why does the burden of "learning enough" to do their job correctly always fall on everyone except the engineers who advocate doing these complete rewrites?
React and JSX are not open web standards. They're popular, but they're are not a common denominator. They require you to learn and use JavaScript first and foremost and were designed uninclusively with software engineers as the audience. This is a stark contrast to the declarative languages of CSS and HTML that were designed inclusively with designers and other non-programmers as an audience.
So, you know what? It's no surprise that a React rewrite alienated an accessibility team. It's no surprise that the accessibility team worked their asses off to try to demonstrate the value of inclusiveness and tried without success to train these engineers and get problems the engineers created fixed, only to be told the issue was going about it the wrong way.
React's fanbase largely views inclusiveness and accessibility as an optional, bolt on feature that can be addressed later. As something it's okay to sacrifice on the alter of the new hotness. React's fanbase doesn't give a crap if someone who could previously contribute something very valuable very effectively can't anymore. Someone who has concerns other than learning new languages and frameworks constantly should just get out of way, they're clearly too dumb or too old to matter.
14 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] thread"I'm super ignorant about accessibility, but I heard this one time. Here, accessibility experts, I googled this link for you. Should be easy to implement."
At any rate I'm sure that nothing I have ever worked on is as accessible as anything you have ever worked on just because what are the odds that I could have been part of anything worthwhile and what are the odds you are not just an amazing genius dropping by to let me know it? Pretty slim I bet.
in fact, you seem somewhat rude - are we acquaintances in some way?
Gutenberg has been changing constantly. When it's "released" it should only be released as a final version to developers, meaning they're no longer changing it, before being released to the public.
I've known a few people who've developed Gutenberg compatible plugins, only to have it break 2 weeks later when an "update" arrived. "Update" meaning "it's been redone entirely different".
It's been noted elsewhere here - use the official "classic editor". Gutenberg offers ZERO benefits. It's simply a different way of accomplising the same tasks.
1. A React app is still DOM-based. Normal accessibility practices still apply, as they do for any other SPAs
2. It takes maybe a week to learn enough of JSX and React to get started on accessibility tasks
This sounds like refusing to work on a new codebase without actually being invested into it. Also got a combative feeling from reading a few PRs, where simple style issues are discussed at length vs just fixed with one variable change. Am I reading it wrong?
All the best luck for Matthew.
Why is user experience and accessibility always someone else's problem? Why does the burden of "learning enough" to do their job correctly always fall on everyone except the engineers who advocate doing these complete rewrites?
React and JSX are not open web standards. They're popular, but they're are not a common denominator. They require you to learn and use JavaScript first and foremost and were designed uninclusively with software engineers as the audience. This is a stark contrast to the declarative languages of CSS and HTML that were designed inclusively with designers and other non-programmers as an audience.
So, you know what? It's no surprise that a React rewrite alienated an accessibility team. It's no surprise that the accessibility team worked their asses off to try to demonstrate the value of inclusiveness and tried without success to train these engineers and get problems the engineers created fixed, only to be told the issue was going about it the wrong way.
React's fanbase largely views inclusiveness and accessibility as an optional, bolt on feature that can be addressed later. As something it's okay to sacrifice on the alter of the new hotness. React's fanbase doesn't give a crap if someone who could previously contribute something very valuable very effectively can't anymore. Someone who has concerns other than learning new languages and frameworks constantly should just get out of way, they're clearly too dumb or too old to matter.