[TonyAlicea10]

This isn't about "purity/correctness" it's about the real experience of a blind person. Accessibility means caring about the HTML.

Your comment only mentions developers as the audience of HTML authoring, as opposed to users, which is a common attitude and the core problem with Tailwind.

[flossly]

I use Tailwind and have all kinds of "screen reader" directives in my templates.

Not sure if it helps, but if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them.

It seems that Tailwind is now blamed for the mess that is HTML/CSS. Tailwind certainly allows for accessible designs; it may not be the ideal solution, sure, but what we aim for is "good enough".

[embedding-shape]

> but if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them.

Isn't this slightly backwards? Why would blind users sign up if the platform isn't usable for them in the first place? It has to be usable for them for them to become users :)

[DANmode]

Notably, this is also how most businesses treat their sighted end-users…

[bsoles]

> Not sure if it helps, but if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them.

I have heard "we don't have blind customers" argument many times before. Apart from ethical issues that this raises, ADA requirements, technically, don't care if you have blind users or not. Accessibility is still required...

[shimman]

It's a great way to make an easy $10-30k as a law firm too when you sue them. Especially when you have definitive statements like "we purposely don't care about a11y until we get sued for it."

[throwaway24274]

It's not just blind people, but also people with reduced eyesight. As I'm getting older, I really appreciate good contrast and the possibility to zoom in without breaking the layout.

[48terry]

People always forget they're one unlucky event from losing their sight, hearing, dexterity, or more. Hell, like you say, even aging's enough to do it. Accessibility suddenly becomes a lot more important when you're on the other side of the "not a priority" talk.

[u_fucking_dork]

And how does tailwind or the structure of the underlying html of the page change or affect that?

[extra88]

If Tailwind lends itself to using pixels instead of relative units for things that should be relative (like font-size, line-height, etc.), that's a problem. For those users, the HTML elements matter less unless they're savvy users who have custom user stylesheets to selectively adjust the appearance of content instead of changing everything on the page by zooming (e.g. make links, buttons, paragraphs, list items bigger and/or a different font or weight).

[stefan_lec]

This is not true. Tailwind defaults to rem as the underlying length unit for almost everything. You have to go to extra effort in most cases to use px.

[extra88]

Note the word "if" at the beginning.

[reaperducer]

if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them.

Not good enough. You have to be accessible before it is needed in order to avoid legal liability.

And how do you expect to get a blind user if they already cannot use your product?

None of the doctors I build web sites for are currently blind. I know this because I talk to them regularly. But I still build the web sites for the future, when HR might hire a doctor or nurse or other person who is blind, or partially sighted, or has trouble with their muscles, or has difficulty distinguishing colors.

Doing the right thing isn't that hard. Not doing it is just lazy.

[ncphillips]

We use tailwind and are capable of building accessible websites without any issue. People could make all the same mistakes with CSS for accessibility. It’s the not knowing how to make accessible content that leads to inaccessible content, not the tool you use to implement the styling.

[flossly]

You call it lazy. I call it "focus" or avoiding pre-mature optimization.

I find the "legal liability" claim hilarious... I do better than 95% of the web: as I said I HAVE some screen reader directives (just did not test it), and labels to make the app more accessible.

[48terry]

> You call it lazy. I call it "focus"

Is this to be read that disabled people and their needs, or more directly from the replied-to comment, "doing the right thing", are not a focus of yours, flossly?

[LtWorf]

A former coworker of mine opened a meeting saying "we are so good, we care about accessibility". I had been complaining for months and finally a customer had said "we won't buy your product unless it complies to the law".

[DANmode]

Perhaps an accessible URL you’re associated with in your bio, to bolster your point?

[reaperducer]

I find the "legal liability" claim hilarious

You must have six million dollars laying around. Because that's the penalty Target paid for not having an accessible web site.

[_puk]

In 2008..

That wasn't even a regulatory penalty, but a class action by the National Federation of the blind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Bli...

[0x3f]

Sounds like you're kind of just talking your book though. Person who makes accessible sites suggests you need an accessible site. Blind people aren't the only ones who might need modifications. You could have an infinitely long list of adjustments for all kinds of disabilities, and tell me I'm lazy for not doing each of them. Why are blind people special?

[well_ackshually]

You are lazy for not doing accessibility adjustments, because accessibility isn't for blind users. It's for the deaf ones, the ones with poor eyesight, the ones with mental deficiencies, the ones with motor issues like Parkinson's, the ones browsing your site shitfaced at 4AM, and so on and so on.

Accessibility isn't a checklist to cover your ass for a percentage of the population: it's for everyone. It literally makes your website less shit. You slapping an aria-label doesn't fix things.

[0x3f]

Every moment you spend doing accessibility is a moment you spend not doing other things. You could argue it has a high RoI to do accessibility, fine, but that doesn't make it lazy _not_ to do it. Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.

[esseph]

You just told a bunch of potential and current customers that they're not worth the ROI.

Pretty sure they'll remember that, and they'll talk about it a lot.

[well_ackshually]

Accessibility is done while you do it. Not as an afterthought.

But if you're having a higher ROI writing absolute crap, feel free, it's not my website.

[48terry]

> Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.

I mean, to readers of these comments, I think it's right there for you: 0x3f will take "higher ROI" over "accommodate and support disabled people".

[afavour]

> Not sure if it helps, but if we get our first blind user I will gladly make some admends to make it more usable for them.

How will you know if they are unable to use your site? They'll just leave.

[TonyAlicea10]

I mentioned blind but there’s lots of others. Folks sitting a desk whose eyesight are getting worse and are scared to say so for fear of losing their job, for example. This happens.

Side note: if you aren’t deliberately choosing semantic elements and instead dropping aria attributes onto a bunch of divs this is an anti-pattern.

[The_President]

Knowing the DOM structure is properly engineered is the gateway to an entirely compliant end product out the gate. Leaves pros looking for the "difficultly level" on SEMRush after maxing it out.

[jbreckmckye]

What does Tailwind have to do with accessibility? Most significant HTML markup is block level elements. The CSS is completely orthogonal.

I feel like old-school frontend devs bring up accessibility as a kind of bogeyman.

It reminds me of the myth that CSS style X or Y breaks accessibility "because screen readers expect semantic CSS classes". Zeldman (of A List Apart) promulgated that disinformation for years, until someone actually told him screen readers don't work that way. 90% of people who use a11y as a rhetorical cudgel have never actually used AT themselves.

[extra88]

I'm not familiar with that old tale about Zeldman. It's true that assistive technologies don't know about CSS class names but CSS absolutely can affect a non-sighted screen reader user's experience.

I don't use Tailwind so I don't know if it makes it easier or harder to do the right thing when needing to hide something from everyone or only visually hiding something. Because it's CSS, it can't take care of only hiding something from assistive technologies.

[jbreckmckye]

The structure of your CSS, and the structure of your divs, do not affect AT experience. This is misinformation.

As mentioned below:

A <div> itself is treated as a generic, transparent box. It doesn't get keyboard focus, and it isn't added to the screen reader's elements list (like headings, links, or landmarks).

[extra88]

Sure. I don't know where you're claiming that misinformation is coming from, it doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. I was referring to CSS properties that affect the accessibility tree.

[jbreckmckye]

The person I am replying to

1. Argues that Tailwind requires div-itis

2. And that divs affect the accessibility tree

[TonyAlicea10]

It’s not Tailwind the tech, it’s the ergonomics of the tool. Tailwind’s design loop encourages “let me add a div so I have a place for my CSS class”.

I’ve usability tested and performed user research with many users needing assistive tools and I’ve used them myself as part of design.

Basic HTML authoring is good practice for many reasons.

[gf000]

> let me add a div so I have a place for my CSS class

As opposed to what exactly? HTML doesn't let you lay out stuff properly without at least some structural divs that have no meaning.

If we have the proper aria properties for example, why does it really matter if I have extra divs (which is, again, irrespective of tailwind)

[TonyAlicea10]

I can do a lot of layout without divs. Adding aria to divs is an anti-pattern and likely a worse experience than semantic elements.

You might need some extra divs for layout sure. But I guarantee less than most people are using if they markup their content first.

Remember divs mean nothing. So the opening example on the Tailwind website is the accessible equivalent of “blah blah blah”.

[stefan_lec]

This is nonsense, you can stick classes on semantic HTML elements just as easily as on a div.

And screen readers can handle elements nested inside a grouping div just fine, that’s how div’s are supposed to be used. The accessibility issues with div’s are when people repurpose them to take the place of existing semantic elements, because doing so requires handling a bunch of aria roles and attributes manually, and something invariably gets missed.

[jbreckmckye]

Screen readers do not announce divs. They only read from the AOM.

A <div> itself is treated as a generic, transparent box. It doesn't get keyboard focus, and it isn't added to the screen reader's elements list (like headings, links, or landmarks).

> I’ve usability tested and performed user research with many users needing assistive tools and I’ve used them myself as part of design.

Tell me how often screen readers announce divs that have no role attributes. You are continuing to spread misinformation

[gjsman-1000]

But why would I spend any time mastering this skill when we have AI now?

Disability software that uses both the markup and the on-screen visual for decision making is likely imminent and would render most of this no longer necessary.

Claude Cowork is already doing navigation and web browsing by screenshot showing this is possible.

[hidelooktropic]

I guarantee you no one is working on this.

[DANmode]

A larger, monied AI service will almost certainly trot something like this out as proof of public good in the next few years,

even if it’s something they only notice they can do by accident,

or in a down news cycle.