I mean if your main concern is "Client wouldn't give 2 shits about how is that working", I guess this advice is not for you.
I'm not saint myself, but from time to time I think about people who have special needs, for whom internet (the biggest source of information, free education, online banking, social, media etc...) is not accessible. There are people who can't use internet, because somebody "didn't give 2 shits", and other person didn't bother either, because he is not get paid for it.
W3C Validator? Seriously? Did you travel here from 1999?
UPD: W3C Validator is ok, it is not for a11y testing though. You can try axe for a11y testing. a11y testing tools doesn't guarantee absence of a11y issues, they just help find some obvious ones. You still need to test it manually
As I am not exclusively a front-end dev, yet I was back in the day, W3C Validator was my go to.
For accessibility - that would be some additional planning, time consuming one. Either I hire someone for front-end or learn that stuff myself, either money or time consuming. Not my top priority, since that's quite low percentage of users.
Not only are there legal implications to your attitude about accessibility, but your assumptions about users who benefit from accessible designs is really limited. Microsoft has an Inclusive 101 guide that is a great resource, and I highly recommend reviewing it and challenging yourself a bit on this, Davis.
I am not interested in answering everyone getting upset by that - I won't prioritize accessibility concerns over what the hell my button really is and what it does.
This viewpoint is exhausting and is exactly why accessibility gets pushed to the back burner. "It doesn't effect me personally, so it MUST be a low percentage of users."
Not my top priority, since that's quite low percentage of users.
That is an awful attitude. And you never know when you or someone you know will suddenly belong to that group of users. A disability can happen in an instant.
You do realize that "not my top priority" !== "not gonna do that"?
But, I guess, it's appealing to push views for leverage of community that will get backed up since I am the "bad guy" here.
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
So, what if I want that as a clickable link and don't want to hook up JS to that button to do so?
This result you have there would only make you as the initiator of the idea feel better. Client wouldn't give 2 shits about how is that working, it just works, so why do extra work for that? It's just a trend, even W3C Validator doesn't give a crap about as a button. Therefore, why not style to look like a button, even better - create few concise utilities for that? This is just getting nit-picky.
I mean if your main concern is "Client wouldn't give 2 shits about how is that working", I guess this advice is not for you.
I'm not saint myself, but from time to time I think about people who have special needs, for whom internet (the biggest source of information, free education, online banking, social, media etc...) is not accessible. There are people who can't use internet, because somebody "didn't give 2 shits", and other person didn't bother either, because he is not get paid for it.
W3C Validator? Seriously? Did you travel here from 1999?UPD: W3C Validator is ok, it is not for a11y testing though. You can try axe for a11y testing. a11y testing tools doesn't guarantee absence of a11y issues, they just help find some obvious ones. You still need to test it manually
As I am not exclusively a front-end dev, yet I was back in the day, W3C Validator was my go to.
For accessibility - that would be some additional planning, time consuming one. Either I hire someone for front-end or learn that stuff myself, either money or time consuming. Not my top priority, since that's quite low percentage of users.
That is discrimination based on abilities which has legal implications under some laws. Here is the list of laws
Not only are there legal implications to your attitude about accessibility, but your assumptions about users who benefit from accessible designs is really limited. Microsoft has an Inclusive 101 guide that is a great resource, and I highly recommend reviewing it and challenging yourself a bit on this, Davis.
Oh, we are even going there with this.
I am not interested in answering everyone getting upset by that - I won't prioritize accessibility concerns over what the hell my button really is and what it does.
This viewpoint is exhausting and is exactly why accessibility gets pushed to the back burner. "It doesn't effect me personally, so it MUST be a low percentage of users."
That is an awful attitude. And you never know when you or someone you know will suddenly belong to that group of users. A disability can happen in an instant.
You do realize that "not my top priority" !== "not gonna do that"?
But, I guess, it's appealing to push views for leverage of community that will get backed up since I am the "bad guy" here.
Sheesh, so many butthurt people. ;)