dialogs are here.
Sunday, January 14th, 2018
Thursday, January 11th, 2018
Training a neural network to do front-end development.
I didn’t understand any of this.
Wednesday, January 10th, 2018
Suggestions for small interface tweaks.
Tuesday, January 9th, 2018
The philosophy behind these tools matches my own philosophy (which I think is one of the most important factors in choosing a tool that works for you, not against you).
Saturday, January 6th, 2018
Ana goes into exhaustive detail on all the differences in the shadow DOM and styling of
input type="range" across browsers.
I’m totally fine with browsers providing different styling for complex UI elements like this, but I wish they’d at least provide a consistent internal structure and therefore a consistent way of over-riding the default styles. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to abandon native elements like this in favour building their own UI components from scratch—the kind of over-engineering that inevitably ends up being under-engineered.
Friday, January 5th, 2018
Paul walks us through the process of making some incremental accessibility improvements to this year’s 24 Ways.
Creating something new will always attract attention and admiration, but there’s an under-celebrated nobility in improving what already exists. While not all changes may be visual, they can have just as much impact.
Friday, December 29th, 2017
Everything you ever wanted to know about the
title attribute in HTML.
What’s hot: using
What’s not: using
title on anything else.
Saturday, December 23rd, 2017
Ubiquity and consistency
I keep thinking about this post from Baldur Bjarnason, Over-engineering is under-engineering. It took me a while to get my head around what he was saying, but now that (I think) I understand it, I find it to be very astute.
Let’s take a single interface element, say, a dropdown menu. This is the example Laura uses in her article for 24 Ways called Accessibility Through Semantic HTML. You’ve got two choices, broadly speaking:
- Use the HTML
The advantage of the first choice is that it’s lightweight, it works everywhere, and the browser does all the hard work for you.
You don’t get complete control. Because the browser is doing the heavy lifting, you can’t craft the details of the dropdown to look identical on different browser/OS combinations.
This is the point that Baldur makes: no matter how much you over-engineer your own custom solution, there’ll always be something that falls between the cracks. So, ironically, the over-engineered solution—when compared to the simple under-engineered native browser solution—ends up being under-engineered.
Is it worth it? Rian Rietveld asks:
The answer, as ever, is it depends. It depends on your priorities. If your priority is having consistent control over the details, then foregoing native browser functionality in favour of scripting everything yourself aligns with your goals.
But I’m reminded of something that Eric often says:
The web does not value consistency. The web values ubiquity.
Ubiquity; universality; accessibility—however you want to label it, it’s what lies at the heart of the World Wide Web. It’s the idea that anyone should be able to access a resource, regardless of technical or personal constraints. It’s an admirable goal, and what’s even more admirable is that the web succeeds in this goal! But sometimes something’s gotta give, and that something is control. Rian again:
The days that a website must be pixel perfect and must look the same in every browser are over. There are so many devices these days, that an identical design for all is not doable. Or we must take a huge effort for custom form elements design.
I think Jake’s navigation transitions proposal is fascinating. What if there were a browser-native way to get more control over how page navigations happen? I reckon that would cover the justification of 90% of single page apps.
That’s a great way of examining these kinds of decisions and questioning how this tension could be resolved. If people are frustrated by the lack of control in browser-native navigations, let’s figure out a way to give them more control. If people are frustrated by the lack of styling for
select elements, maybe we should figure out a way of giving them more control over styling.
Hang on though. I feel like I’ve painted a divisive picture, like you have to make a choice between ubiquity or consistency. But the rather wonderful truth is that, on the web, you can have your cake and eat it. That’s what I was getting at with the three-step approach I describe in Resilient Web Design:
- Identify core functionality.
- Make that functionality available using the simplest possible technology.
- The user needs to select an item from a list of options.
- Use a
- The user needs to navigate to another page.
- Use an
aelement with an
The pushback I get from people in the control/consistency camp is that this sounds like more work. It kinda is. But honestly, in my experience, it’s not that much more work. Also, and I realise I’m contradicting the part where I said I’m lazy, but that’s why it’s called work. This is our job. It’s not about what we prefer; it’s about serving the needs of the people who use what we build.
Anyway, if I were to rephrase my three-step process in terms of under-engineering and over-engineering, it might look something like this:
- Start with user needs.
- Build an under-engineered solution—one that might not offer you much control, but that works for everyone.
- Layer on a more over-engineered solution—one that might not work for everyone, but that offers you more control.
Ubiquity, then consistency.
Thursday, December 7th, 2017
Great advice on keeping your hyperlinks accessible.
Wednesday, November 29th, 2017
An excellent level-headed evaluation of styling and scripting form controls, weighing up the benefits and trade-offs. The more tightly you control the appearance, the less you get to benefit from the functionality (and accessibility) that the browser gives you for free …meaning you’ve now to got to work harder to replace it.
HTML elements like check buttons, radio buttons or select options can be hard to style with CSS in a custom design. There are many workarounds for this, but are they accessible?
Tuesday, November 28th, 2017
In which Brian takes a long winding route through an explanation of why the
is attribute for custom elements is dead before he demonstrates the correct way to use web components:
<!-- instead of writing this --> <input type="radio" is="x-radio"> <!-- you write this --> <x-radio> <input type="radio"> </x-radio>
Sadly, none of the showcase examples I’ve seen for web components do this.
Thursday, November 23rd, 2017
Practical advice from Ire on localising web pages.
Brad always said that carousels were way to stop people beating each other up in meetings. I like the way Heydon puts it:
Carousels (or ‘content sliders’) are like men. They are not literally all bad — some are even helpful and considerate. But I don’t trust anyone unwilling to acknowledge a glaring pattern of awfulness. Also like men, I appreciate that many of you would rather just avoid dealing with carousels, but often don’t have the choice. Hence this article.
Monday, November 20th, 2017
Instead of being prescriptive about error messaging, we use what the browser natively gives us.
Wednesday, November 1st, 2017
Good question! And a good answer:
If you really need it, which you probably don’t,
readonlyis what you want.
Thursday, October 5th, 2017
James has been tweaking the accessibility of his site navigation. I’m looking forward to the sequel.
Monday, October 2nd, 2017
One of the things we’d hoped to enable via Web Components was a return to ctrl-r web development. At some level of complexity and scale we all need tools to help cope with code size, application structure, and more. But the tender, loving maintainance of babel and webpack and NPM configurations that represents a huge part of “front end development” today seems…punitive. None of this should be necessary when developing one (or a few) components and composing things shouldn’t be this hard. The sophistication of the tools needs to get back to being proportional with the complexity of the problem at hand.
I completely agree with Alex here. But that’s also why I was surprised and disheartened when I linked to Monica’s excellent introduction to web components that a package manager seemed to be a minimum requirement.
Tuesday, September 26th, 2017
Occasionally, people e-mail me to say something along the lines of “I’ve come up with something to replace HTML!”.
Five years ago, Hixie outlined the five metrics that a competitor to the web would have to score well in:
- Be completely devoid of any licensing requirements.
- Be vendor-neutral.
- Be device-neutral and media-neutral.
- Be content-neutral.
- Be radically better than the existing Web.
You come at the king, you best not miss.
Monday, September 25th, 2017
Here’s a great free curriculum for teaching HTML and CSS.
Thursday, August 24th, 2017
I quite like this proposal for
geo element in HTML, especially that it has a fallback built in (like
video). I’m guessing the next step is to file an issue and create a web component to demonstrate how this could work.
That brings up another question: what do you name a custom element that you’d like to eventually become part of the spec? You can’t simply name it
geo because you have to include a hyphen.