> Calling that out as being specia attention for accessibility is false in my opinion.
I didn't. I said that accessibility is no more of a problem for js-fueled pages than HTML pages, which was not always true.
> Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported
Then don't say people are making websites wrong when by common practice you're using the wrong tools to interact with them.
> I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents.
Like I said, feel free to opt out of the modern internet. It's your life. It's just flatly absurd to be in your position and accuse developers of having poor practices when they provide an objectively better experience for probably 9999 out of 10000 other users by using widely accepted, standard, reliable practices that often require less development time.
I am blind. I do rely on accessibility to interact with a computer. Yes, you could accuse me of deliberately avoiding the modern web, but I have my reasons. Primary reason is performance. Even though I feel like you are talking down to me from a pretty high horse, I still don't wish for you to ever experience how sluggish it feels trying to use the "modern web" with a screen reader on something like Windows. Don't even make me start about the hellhole that is Linux GUI accessibility. It was a nice ride once, before GNOME 3 and the elimination of CORBA killed most of the good work done by good people. Fact is, I am too used to a system which reacts promptly when I press a key to be able to switch to a modern browser by default. That would kill all my productivity. Yes, its a trade, but for now, having no JS engine by default is still way better then the alternatives.
I apologize for saying your use case is incorrect-- clearly, someone using a screen reader would have a totally legit if still comparatively uncommon use case. I have used the modern web in screen readers because I've developed modern web pages to be accessible, which by my estimation means doing more than using a WCAG scanner.
I still think it's ridiculous to say that developers are doing something wrong by using modern practices just because it doesn't fit your use case. You can have your opinion all you want to and I can have my opinion about it.
> There’s no reason to think SPAs are in any way objectively better in terms of either UX or DX.
No. Not without knowing the use case, the requirements, the users, and all of that. Sometimes I don't need anything beyond a text editor for something I make. Use the right tool for the job.
> I can’t count the number of SPAs that manage to break basic browser functionality like links, back/forward navigation and scrolling. It’s insane.
Yes. With more powerful tools you can fuck more things up, more thoroughly than with less powerful tools. That's not a problem with tools, that's a problem with bad development and design. Assuming that the person who fucked it up that badly would have made a better experience with less powerful tools is almost certainly wrong.
Well, there is obviously a conflict in UI experience. I can very well see how back/forward breaks the idea of a web "app", because what would backward mean in a classical app, except for maybe undo? I tend to put web addresses in roughly these two categories: those that try to be an app, and those which just present a document. True, inline editing may blur the line, but thats how I try to see it. IOW, I am not mad at someone killing my back/forward buttons if these just dont make any sense in the context of the app they are providing. OTOH, I am pretty pissed if someone steps outside of classic HTML if all they are doing is basically prviding text/images.
Sure, if you’re building Figma, SPA all the way. If it’s a dashboard or a semi-static document, SPAs are misused and that’s when basic functionality gets replaced with JS, but typically in a broken fashion.
I didn't. I said that accessibility is no more of a problem for js-fueled pages than HTML pages, which was not always true.
> Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported
Then don't say people are making websites wrong when by common practice you're using the wrong tools to interact with them.
> I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents.
Like I said, feel free to opt out of the modern internet. It's your life. It's just flatly absurd to be in your position and accuse developers of having poor practices when they provide an objectively better experience for probably 9999 out of 10000 other users by using widely accepted, standard, reliable practices that often require less development time.