A "thank you" for La Liberté éclairant le monde.

Yes. Output can be sent to a Braille device too.

The statement is about encouraging folks to use the platform: `<button>Hello!</button>` over `<div role=button tabindex=0>Hello</div>`

Guidepup also includes a Virtual Screenreader[1].

[1] https://www.guidepup.dev/docs/virtual

One way to frame it is: "how would I describe this image to somebody sat next to me?"

Important to add for blind people: "... assuming they never seen anything and visual metaphors won't work"

The amount of times I've seem captions that wouldn't make sense for people who never been able to see is staggering, I don't think most people realize how visual our typical language usage is.

Apt, given the earlier discussion around Nolan Lawson's article: when used diligently, ARIA can help turn that div soup into something users, user agents, assistive technologies _and_ developers can make better sense of.

As the article mentions, slapping aria-label on everything won't make an interface accessible and might have unintended consequences.

I hate that this burns me out at all, but every job I've been at has insisted on adding some sort of data-test-id throughout the app, and I've always thought it was actively obfuscating seeing what's really happening for a perceived value add of test stability that in fact didn't matter but also actively his what was really changing over time.

Anyhow, it's been a huge morale win to see really good works like the Testing Library strongly emphasize using page accessibility hooks to drive testing! https://testing-library.com/docs/queries/about/#priority

Exactly as you say, it drives better accessibility, and gets everyone using the same referants (versus inventing a new third way outside of both query selectors & aria).

>Is that extra development cheaper than the risk of a lawsuit

It probably isn't cheaper, no. The base risk of a lawsuit in this domain seems very low for all but the largest of websites; the largest of websites generally have large enough user pools that investing in out of the box accessibility makes sense anyway. In fact I would wager Facebook makes more advertising money off of its median blind user than its median fully-sighted user, simply because that's a very easy demographic to target ads to.

I'm willing to change my mind on this if you can provide evidence if even, say, 1% of all inaccessible websites on the Internet have been sued on these grounds.

>Seeing your disabled customers as a burden

Disabled potential customers, for one. Disabled people aren't dumb, and they don't pay for things they can't actually use. I'm surprised you assume they would.

But, and and this may come as a surprise, I genuinely think the compatibility layer approach is the much better option here. There are plenty of reasons to think so, which I outlined in the original post. Your slander is not welcome or acceptable just because you disagree with me.

It's a shame that the overengineered anchor links in TFA don't work with the keyboard.

You can shorthand the last four declarations with a single `inset: 10px;` (or maybe `inset: .625rem;`?

That's cool, actually I didn't know about this one :)