[jraph]

> I feel that claiming the web now consistently complies with ARIA is an incredibly bold claim

... that I didn't make

> This thinking was popular 20 years ago when ARIA was created. Application-like behaviour, which nearly always means JS, is the majority of websites.

That's besides the point, your JS code still generates HTML. Writing applications in JS doesn't change anything about the topic.

What I'm saying is that you mostly don't need to use aria attributes with a good HTML structure, generated from JS or not. Use them sparingly when you can do it in pure HTML (again, generated or not).

> Others not following your religion is not a defect.

That's not an answer to the stuff you quoted and there's no religion here.

You have a point about web accessibility lacking but we'll have to disagree about "let's just give up good practice since it's not been perfect despite all these years". Actually, you are not claiming "not perfect", you are claiming "not present", but you're wrong on this as other commenters told you.

[nailer]

> > I feel that claiming the web now consistently complies with ARIA is an incredibly bold claim

> ... that I didn't make

Ok so you agree that the web has not and is unlikely to be ARIA compliant?

But then persist in supporting ARIA despite knowing that goal isn’t and never will be achievable?

That seems exactly like religion.

> you're wrong on this as other commenters told you

As does this. Nobody has refuted the point in the original post that ARIA is a boil the ocean strategy, in face you have just conceded it. What makes you think other commenters disagreeing would change that?

[jraph]

You agree that most programs are bug ridden. But then persist in writing programs despite knowing that goal isn't and never will be achievable?

There are imperfections in any piece of furniture and yet we are still building furniture? How religious!

You sound like this to me.

There's a whole world between "accessible HTML is never achieved anywhere" and "accessible HTML is fully achieved everywhere". As other commenters already told you, we are actually mostly there, there's no complete failure here. Sure, shit's not perfect (far from it, sadly...) but I feel like you are throwing the baby with the bath water.

I'm not willing to increase my electricity bill or spend tokens to make up for your unwillingness to use widely accepted - and mandated by law in many cases! - solutions. I'll just pass and probably others will do as well.

I'll stop here, this is not productive, none of us will likely move from where we stand. Let's just say that you are apparently alone in your position here in this discussion and you have so far failed to convince us. Call that position in which everyone here is except you "religion" all you want. I'll even snarkily risk a tu quoque by emphasizing that AI is no magic dust.

Good day.

[nailer]

> But then persist in writing programs despite knowing that goal isn't and never will be achievable?

Because, asides from users interacting with less programs than they do websites it’s not possible for a user to systematically fix all the programs they interact with. You are proposing an 0(n) solution instead of an 0(1) solution.

That should be incredibly obvious before this discussion even started, and even more obvious after reading this far in the thread. You’re replying but you’re not paying attention to what you’re reading. I’m not going to bother continue reading or interacting with you any further.