[slimsag]

My understanding is all modern screenreaders (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, etc.) handle JS websites perfectly fine and modern accessibility standards in JS are much more than box-ticking.

I'm a fan of simple HTML, too-but I don't believe it has any real impact on accessibility over JS with accessibility in mind. If there are specific cases where that is not true, I'd love to know them

[userbinator]

If you think it's confusing to have a page change while you're reading it with your eyes, imagine what that would do to someone who can't see and relies on a screenreader telling them.

[robin_reala]

Right, but that’s why you have aria-live regions and politeness levels. All things considered, a simpler page is typically more accessible but:

- a simpler page is typically more usable as well, and

- sometimes you have inherent complexity that it’s also possible to make accessible

[pjerem]

JS issues with accessibility is not inherent to the JS compatibility itself with the browser.

It’s much more that JS tends to make your page being modified in unexpected ways. If all you have is a voice reading the page, you may be submerged by information each time the dom changes and you may have a hard time understanding what is the context of the element which changed.

[yreg]

You can still make it perfectly accessible screen-reader-wise/WCAG-wise.

Pointing out to actual accessibility issues would have been a much better argument than generic complaining about the website requiring JS.

[nottorp]

How does it work with a screen reader when the JS decides to refresh all controls simultaneously?

[yreg]

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A...

[doublepg23]

Here is a video of a blind person browsing the web https://youtu.be/OOvXuz6ejuw

[nottorp]

The point is that for some reason no one's guilty for the crap sites; i guess they just show up when it rains.