
Accessibility Through Semantic HTML - kawera
https://24ways.org/2017/accessibility-through-semantic-html/
======
jstewartmobile
We have people in the "reality-based community"[0] like Ms. Kalbag posing the
fairly rational question of, "Why not go semantic and let the browsers figure
the rest out?"

Then the "empire" _acts_ , and makes an overcomplicated mess of dancing text,
XSS, 3rd-party cookies, popovers, and _dickbars_ [1].

Then as the rest of us are studying that reality--judiciously, as we will--
Google/Apple/Mozilla will act again, creating other new realities, which we
can study too, and that's how things will sort out.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-
certainty-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-
and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html) [1]
[https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars](https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars)

~~~
nerdponx
I don't see how "the empire" has anything to do with the viability or non-
viability of semantic HTML.

Would you mind clarifying? If you're making a point I don't understand it.

~~~
jstewartmobile
The people working on the major browsers aren't fools. If they were optimizing
to get _meaning_ across, they'd have done one hell of a better job than half-
readable, non-accessible mess we have now that requires _megabytes_ of divs
and classes to markup, and a _supercomputer_ to render.

Point being that the "empire" does not give a hoot about _meaning_. Their
priorities lie elsewhere.

edit: Example. One day Steve Jobs just felt like flash didn't belong on his
platform. At the time, flash was _everywhere_. Where is it now? I'm not
shedding a tear for it--just using it as example of what a top-down enterprise
the web _actually is_ compared to what some people would like to think.

~~~
nerdponx
Do you mean Google? Whoever makes the CSS spec? Who or what exactly are you
railing against, other than "shitty web design"?

Shitty web design is shitty web design. Google and Mozilla themselves didn't
make the Smithsonian Magazine site a bloated monstrosity, nor can I think of a
reasonable way for a browser to prevent sites from sucking without ruining the
"non-geek" user experience on better-behaved dynamic sites and web apps.

Anything not supported by HTML or CSS directly will inevitably be implemented
in Javascript. We've already been there.

~~~
jstewartmobile
I'm "railing" against the platform itself. I've had a web browser and a
broadband connection since the late '90s.

Unwanted _popups_ still happen. Cross-site-scripting attacks are _still_ a
thing. Canvas fingerprinting is _still_ a thing, albeit a newer one. Sites I
visit can _still_ track me across other properties unless I jump through a
number of hoops. Content creators are _still_ largely not being compensated
for their work. Half the sites I visit are practically unreadable _for me_ ,
and my eyesight is pretty damn good.

The big companies like Google or Apple could have stopped a few of these races
to the bottom in their tracks--just like Jobs did to Flash--but they haven't,
for, umm, reasons...

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170706120427/https://www.tedun...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170706120427/https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/a-prettier-
web-not-a-thicker-one)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fnZ2chEYg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10fnZ2chEYg)

------
andybak
From a brief reading (apologies if I missed something):

Author cherry picks one of the few elements where the "semantic" issue
actually results in different browser behaviour.

They then go on to extrapolate this to a broader point that isn't sustainable
based on that example. For instance - div vs section has no effect on
functionality to the best of my knowledge.

I suspect there are more examples of cases where semantic HTML is pointless
cargo-culting than there are of when it makes a real difference to any
existant user agent.

~~~
nerdponx
Well, the point about screen readers is far from cargo cult design.

~~~
nl
Someone should write a screen reader which actually worked and didn’t rely on
people doing the right thing.

Screenshot the webpage -> Neural Network to segment the page and decide what
is the navigation -> text extraction from image, with corrections from
(rendered) HTML source.

All the parts are there and work better than existing screen readers.

~~~
nerdponx
OK, go ahead and build one why don't you? Yes, neural networks for sequence
tagging are getting better, but if the problem were so trivial it would have
been solved by now.

But that's beside the point. Your comment is like saying "They have powered
exosuits now, so why do we still need to put ramps on buildings for people in
wheelchairs?"

I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more
web designers.

~~~
jessaustin
Life will get a lot better for the handicapped when engineers care enough to
offer them real mobility. Currently they're supposed to be happy to make do
with devices developed in the 1930s. I suspect the first engineer to care
enough will be someone like Herbert Everest.

~~~
nl
Yes this is my point too.

That reaction is pretty disappointing really. It's the "crutches are fine, why
should they want artificial limbs" that is really kind of insulting.

~~~
nerdponx
On the contrary, I'm just trying to acknowledge that artificial limbs are not
here and available for the masses just yet.

~~~
nl
_I can only hope that your level of apathy and contempt is not shared by more
web designers._

Words like "apathy and contempt" do not seem to be "just trying to acknowledge
that artificial limbs". Instead they are directly saying that people who hope
for artificial limbs are apathetic and have contempt for the problem.

In-fact the complete opposite is true.

~~~
nerdponx
People who hope for artificial limbs _and sneer at attempts to make things
more accessible in the meantime_ , yes.

When the tech is both widespread and affordable, you can start designing for
the tech.

Don't even understand what bothers you so much about making pages more screen-
reader-accessible in the first place. Great, I'm glad that you have experience
in this area and can attest to the fact that screen readers don't always work
even when HTML is semantic. But why are you actively resisting semantic HTML?

It sounds to me like you're saying, "It doesn't work well, so we shouldn't usw
it at all." What would you prefer, div soup?

It doesn't even need to be the case that semantic HTML is a killer solution
for screen reader users. Just needs to be better than nothing once you net
costs and benefits.

So I'm genuinely curious: when is it better to not use semantic markup? Or
when does the cost of using it become prohibitive?

~~~
nl
Who sneered at attempts to make things accessible?

 _So I 'm genuinely curious: when is it better to not use semantic markup?_

It never is - but nevertheless it happens all the time. Perhaps you hadn't
noticed it was exactly what this article was about?

