Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I often found that stressing about "semantic html" and the "correct way" is just virtue signaling and in reality, in real projects, if it works it works, and you move on.



> I often found that stressing about "semantic html" and the "correct way" is just virtue signaling and in reality, in real projects, if it works it works, and you move on.

On the other hand, I have found that most of the time the "I don't care, it works for me" people are just lazy or incompetent. Others mentioned blocking your site for screenreaders and ethical scrapers, I can add non standard (mobile) browsers to the list.

You might say you don't care about them. I say that is the same as throwing your household waste over the fence and let others fix it. It doesn't exist if you can't see it! The web as a whole becomes more inaccessible, it fortifies existing monopolies and mono culture.

It does not have to be perfect, you don't have to spend days. A little effort and awareness goes a long way.


If "it works" means "it also works for people with screen readers, people reliant on the keyboard, and makes use of the easiest input methods on phones", then I might be inclined to agree with you - although in practice, your HTML will probably be pretty "semantic", or it will have been more work to author than needed.


If you're working on projects of a certain scale, it becomes a legal issue. If it's personal site you're talking about, or a small client, then practically I could agree. But there's no reason to ignore accessibility guidelines if you're aware of them. I like to use tab navigation since sometimes it's faster than a mouse. But if you make your button a div, and don't add tabIndex="0" to that div, I can't do that. Your comment is too presumptuous about how people actually use computers.


I'm designing a program that deals with money. $25.99 looks like a floating point number, so I should use those, right?

\s


Actually no if your building a site to be searched you want to reserve h1, h2, and <table> for their sematic use.

H1 for main page heading h2's for sub headings and <tables for tabular data eg a list of ingredients or technical data

One use I have seen for table of the basic details of a yacht, displacement, speed , length etc


> in reality, in real projects, if it works, it works, and you move on.

This is your perception, but if you don't use semantic HTML, you are building elements that look like something (for sighted users) but in reality, is something else (for assistive technologies and search engines).

So, it only works for a part of your users. And maybe it works for the majority of your users, but that means that you are making it hard for people that use assistive technologies and search engines to navigate your site.

Leave alone people with disabilities because you don't seem to care. Search engines need semantic HTML to crawl correctly your website, so it's an important part of any project.


I’m curious if you think that best practices in all instances are just bologna?

It’s also interesting because certainly you must have come across those engineers and developers who’re so well versed in their particular portion of the field that they know to tweak VM settings for memory leaks, or how to shard databases for faster queries, or why your Z-index isn’t working.

Those people most likely spent time studying their crafts and learning the “correct way” to do things.


This is legitimately a dangerous practise. You are closing off your website from blind people and ethical web scrapers when you do this.


Closing off your website from blind people and ethical web scrapers != dangerous.

Just a dick move.


Sometimes it’s illegal. I’m sure I’m not the only developer here who has had to write accessible code to fulfill a project’s legal requirement.


You're correct, and I work for an organization that explicitly promises accessible websites. Gov't sites also require accessibility.


what if your website offers medical advice? Some people have to maintain things like WebMD.


WebMD is not a reliable source of medical information.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: