tomhoad

Recently, there seems to be this ever-growing, romantic vision of turning the clock back to a time when the browser was simpler.

Certainly, in terms of accessibility, the JavaScript (and Browser) landscape has never been better than it is now. General awareness and tooling for building online experiences that consider disabled users has led to an infinitely better time for these people when using the internet, overall.

Sure, some people build shitty products that make your fan spin and ignore disabled users. But that's because they've built a shitty product, not because of the 'modern browser' itself.

> The web can be a resource hog, sometimes devouring CPU and memory. But it doesn’t need to be that way.

It also doesn't mean returning back to horse and cart!

> yet users who want or need to disable JS are often left out in the cold.

Isn't that just a preference of the user, that has repercussions? In fact the WCAG 2.0 specifically says that a JS fallback is _not_ a requirement for accessibility - a common misconception is that disabled users disable JavaScript - this isn't actually true.

Fair enough if you want to turn off JS for tracking reasons or whatever, but you have to accept that some things might not work without it.

Using JS ternaries for conditional rendering doesn't feel natural to me at all

Github is not Git. There are no Github 'commands'.

> explicitly checked for as part of a QA process

After you've written the application? That makes absolutely no sense, unless you enjoy renaming lots of elements.

> instead of relying on some vague standard of semanticness

It's not vague, there is an actual international standard... WCAG!

According to WCAG 2.0, yes I am.

You deserve downvotes. Semantic HTML is a key part of making your website accessible for people with disabilities. Ignore it, and you shouldn't be making things for the web.

> I find zero value in using ul/li's for lists that aren't bulleted

Browsers don't care. You may not care either. But people with disabilities attempting to make sense of your website do, very much so.

There's absolutely no reason __not__ to use semantic HTML, and many reasons to do so.

Pretty much because of staggering

Easier to whine on HackerNews.

I _think_ that's ironic

This looks promising, animations in React are a bit of a mess right now.

React-motion requires a PhD to figure out, and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than use Transition Group.

I have had some moderate success with Popmotion, although I've also seen performance issues when staggering lists (likely down to my implementation rather than the library, but still).