Ensuring technology is accessible and inclusive relies heavily on receiving feedback directly from disabled users. You cannot rely solely on checklists, guidelines, and good-faith guesses to get things right. This is often hindered, however, by a lack of accessible prototypes available to use during testing.

Rather than wait for the digital landscape to change, researchers should leverage all the available tools they can use to create and replicate the testing environments they need to get this important research completed. Without it, we will continue to have a primarily inaccessible and not inclusive technology landscape that will never be disrupted.

Note: I use “identity first” disability language (as in “disabled people”) rather than “people first” language (as in “people with disabilities”). Identity first language aligns with disability advocates who see disability as a human trait description or even community and not a subject to be avoided or shamed. For more, review “Writing Respectfully: Person-First and Identity-First Language”.

Accessibility-focused Research In All Phases

When people advocate that UX Research should include disabled participants, it’s often with the mindset that this will happen on the final product once development is complete. One primary reason is because that’s when researchers have access to the most accessible artifact with which to run the study. However,

The real ability to ensure an accessible and inclusive system is not by evaluating a final product at the end of a project; it’s by assessing user needs at the start and then evaluating the iterative prototypes along the way.

“

Prototype Research Should Include Disabled Participants

In general, the iterative prototype phase of a project is when teams explore various design options and make decisions that will influence the final project outcome. Gathering feedback from representative users during this phase can help teams make informed decisions, including key pivots before significant development and testing resources are used.

During the prototype phase of user testing, the representative users should include disabled participants. By collecting feedback and perspectives of people with a variety of disabilities in early design testing phases, teams can more thoughtfully incorporate key considerations and supplement accessibility guidelines with real-world feedback. This early-and-often approach is the best way to include accessibility and inclusivity into a process and ensure a more accessible final product.

If you instead wait to include disabled participants in research until a product is near final, this inevitably leads to patchwork fixes of any critical feedback. Then, for feedback not deemed critical, it will likely get “backlogged” where the item priorities compete with new feature updates. With this approach, you’ll constantly be playing catch-up rather than getting it right up front and in an elegant and integrated way.

Accessibility Research Can’t Wait Until The End

Not only does research with disabled participants often occur too late in a project, but it is also far too often viewed as separate from other research studies (sometimes referred to as the “main research”). It cannot be understated that this reinforces the notion of separate-and-not-equal as compared to non-disabled participants and other stakeholder feedback. This has a severe negative impact on how a team will view the priority of inclusive design and, more broadly, the value of disabled people. That is, this reinforces “ableism”, a devaluing of disabled people in society.

UX Research with diverse participants that include a wide variety of disabilities can go a long way in dismantling ableist views and creating vitally needed inclusive technology.

“

The problem is that even when a team is on board with the idea, it’s not always easy to do inclusive research, particularly when involving prototypes. While discovery research can be conducted with minimal tooling and summative research can leverage fully built and accessible systems, prototype research quickly reveals severe accessibility barriers that feel like they can’t be overcome.

Inaccessible Technology Impedes Accessibility Research

Most technology we use has accessibility barriers for users with disabilities. As an example, the WebAIM Million report consistently finds that 96% of web homepages have accessibility errors that are fixable and preventable.

Just like websites, web, and mobile applications are similarly inaccessible, including those that produce early-stage prototypes. Thus, the artifacts researchers might want to use for prototype testing to help create accessible products are themselves inaccessible, creating a barrier for disabled research participants. It quickly becomes a vicious cycle that seems hard to break.

The Limitations Of Figma

Currently, the most popular industry tool for initial prototyping is Figma. These files become the artifacts researchers use to conduct a research study. However, these files often fall short of being accessible enough for many participants with disabilities.

To be clear, I absolutely applaud the Figma employees who have worked very hard on including screen reader support and keyboard functionality in Figma prototypes. This represents significant progress towards removing accessibility barriers in our core products and should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, there are still limitations and even blockers to research.

For one, the Figma files must be created in a way that will mimic the website layout and code. For example, for screen reader navigation to be successful, the elements need to be in their correct reading order in the Layers panel (not solely look correct visually), include labeled elements such as buttons (not solely items styled to look like buttons), and include alternative text for images. Often, however, designers do not build iterative prototypes with these considerations in mind, which prevents the keyboard from navigating correctly and the screen reader from providing the necessary details to comprehend the page.

In addition, Figma’s prototypes do not have selectable, configurable text. This prevents key visual adjustments such as browser zoom to increase text size, dark mode, which is easier for some to view, and selecting text to have it read aloud. If a participant needs these kinds of adjustments (or others I list in the table below), a Figma prototype will not be accessible to them.

Table: Figma prototype limitations per assistive technology

Inclusive Research Is Needed Regardless

Having accessibility challenges with a prototype doesn’t mean we give up on the research. Instead, it means we need to get creative in our approach. This research is too important to keep waiting for the ideal set-up, particularly when our findings are often precisely what’s needed to create accessible technology.

Part of crafting a research study is determining what artifact to use during the study. Thus, when considering prototype research, it is a matter of creating the artifact best suited for your study. If this isn’t going to be, say, a Figma file you receive from designers, then consider what else can be used to get the job done.

Working Around the Current State

Being able to include diverse perspectives from disabled research participants throughout a project’s creation is possible and necessary. Keeping in mind your research questions and the capabilities of your participants, there are research methods and strategies that can be made accessible to gather authentic feedback during the critical prototype design phase.

With that in mind, I propose five ways you can accomplish prototype research while working around inaccessible prototypes:

1. Use a survey.
2. Conduct a co-design session.
3. Test with a similar system.
4. Build your own rapid prototype.
5. Use the Wizard of Oz method.

Use a Survey Instead

Not all research questions at this phase need a full working prototype to be answered, particularly if they are about the general product features or product wording and not the visual design. Oftentimes, a survey tool or similar type of evaluation can be just as effective.

For example, you can confirm a site’s navigation options are intuitive by describing a scenario with a list of navigation choices while also testing if key content is understandable by confirming the user’s next steps based on a passage of text.

Just be sure you build a WCAG-compliant survey that includes accessible form layouts and question types. This will ensure participants can navigate using their assistive technologies. For example, Qualtrics has a specific form layout that is built to be accessible, or check out these accessibility tips for Google Forms. If sharing a document, note features that will enhance accessibility, such as using the ribbon for styling in Microsoft Word.

Tip: To find accessibility documentation for the software you’re using, search in your favorite search engine for the product name plus the word “accessibility” to find a product’s accessibility documentation.

Conduct Co-design Sessions

The prototyping phase might be a good time to utilize co-design and participatory design methods. With these methods, you can co-create designs with participants using any variety of artifacts that match the capabilities of your participants along with your research goals. The feedback can range from high-level workflows to specific visual designs, and you can guide the conversation with mock-ups, equivalent systems, or more creative artifacts such as storyboards that illustrate a scenario for user reaction.

For the prototype artifacts, these can range from low- to high-fidelity. For instance, participants without mobility or vision impairments can use paper-and-pencil sketching or whiteboarding. People with somewhat limited mobility may prefer a tablet-based drawing tool, such as using an Apple pencil with an iPad. Participants with visual impairments may prefer more 3-dimensional tools such as craft supplies, modeling clay, and/or cardboard. Or you may find that simply working on a collaborative online document offers the best accessibility as users can engage with their personalized assistive technology to jot down ideas.

Notably, the types of artifacts you use will be beneficial across differing user groups. In fact, rather than limiting the artifacts, try to offer a variety of ways to provide feedback by default. By doing this, participants can feel more empowered and engaged by the activity while also reassuring them you have created an inclusive environment. If you’re not sure what options to include, feel free to confirm what methods will work best as you recruit participants. That is, as you describe the primary activity when they are signing up, you can ask if the materials you have will be operable for the participant or allow them to tell you what they prefer to use.

The discussion you have and any supplemental artifacts you use then depend on communication styles. For example, deaf participants may need sign language interpreters to communicate their views but will be able to see sample systems, while blind participants will need descriptions of key visual information to give feedback. The actual study facilitation comes down to who you are recruiting and what level of feedback you are seeking; from there, you can work through the accommodations that will work best.

I conducted two co-design sessions at two different project phases while exploring how to create a wearable blind pedestrian navigation device. Early in the project, when we were generally talking about the feature set, we brought in several low-fidelity supplies, including a Braille label maker, cardboard, clay, Velcro, clipboards, tape, paper, and pipe cleaners. Based on user feedback, I fashioned a clipboard hanging from pipe cleaners as one prototype.

Later in the project when we were discussing the size and weight, we taped together Arduino hardware pieces representing the features identified by the participants. Both outcomes are pictured below and featured in a paper entitled, “What Not to Wearable: Using Participatory Workshops to Explore Wearable Device Form Factors for Blind Users.”

Ultimately, the benefit of this type of study is the participant-led feedback. In this way, participants are giving unfiltered feedback that is less influenced by designers, which may lead to more thoughtful design in the end.

Test With an Equivalent System

Very few projects are completely new creations, and often, teams use an existing site or application for project inspiration. Consider using similar existing systems and equivalent scenarios for your testing instead of creating a prototype.

By using an existing live system, participants can then use their assistive technology and adaptive techniques, which can make the study more accessible and authentic. Also, the study findings can range from the desirability of the available product features to the accessibility and usability of individual page elements. These lessons can then inform what design and code decisions to make in your system.

One caveat is to be aware of any accessibility barriers in that existing system. Particularly for website and web applications, you can look for accessibility documentation to determine if the company has reported any WCAG-conformance accessibility efforts, use tools like WAVE to test the system yourself, and/or mimic how your participants will use the system with their assistive technology. If there are workarounds for what you find, you may be able to avoid certain parts of the application or help users navigate past the inaccessible parts. However, if the site is going to be completely unusable for your participants, this won’t be a viable option for you.

If the system is usable enough for your testing, however, you can take the testing a step further by making updates on the fly if you or someone you collaborate with has engineering experience. For example, you can manipulate a website’s code with developer tools to add, subtract, or change the elements and styling on a page in real-time. (See “About browser developer tools”.) This can further enhance the feedback you give to your teams as it may more closely match your team’s intended design.

Build a Rapid Website Prototype

Notably, when conducting research focused on physical devices and hardware, you will not face the same obstacles to inaccessibility as with websites and web applications. You can use a variety of materials to create your prototypes, from cardboard to fabric to 3D printed material. I’ve sewn haptic vibration modules to a makeshift leather bracelet when working with wearables, for instance.

However, for web testing, it may be necessary to build a rapid prototype, especially to work around inaccessible artifacts such as a Figma file. This will include using a site builder that allows you to quickly create a replica of your team’s website. To create an accessible website, you’ll need a site builder with accessibility features and capabilities; I recommend WordPress, SquareSpace, Webflow, and Google Sites.

I recently used Google Sites to create a replica of a client’s draft pages in a matter of hours. I was adamant we should include disabled participants in feedback loops early and often, and this included after a round of significant visual design and content decisions. The web agency building the client’s site used Figma but not with the required formatting to use the built-in screen reader functionality. Rather than leave out blind user feedback at such a crucial time in the project, I started with a similar Google Sites template, took a best guess at how to structure the elements such as headings, recreated the anticipated column and card layouts as best I could, and used placeholder images with projected alt text instead of their custom graphics.

The screen reader testing turned into an impromptu co-design session because I could make changes in-the-moment to the live site for the participant to immediately test out. For example, we determined that some places where I used headings were not necessary, and we talked about image alt text in detail. I was able to add specific design and code feedback to my report, as well as share the live site (and corresponding code) with the team for comparison.

The downside to my prototype was that I couldn’t create the exact 1-to-1 visual design to use when testing with the other disabled participants who were sighted. I wanted to gather feedback on colors, fonts, and wording, so I also recruited low vision and neurodiverse participants for the study. However, my data was skewed because those participants couldn’t make the visual adjustments they needed to fully take in the content, such as recoloring, resizing, and having text read aloud. This was unfortunate, but we at least used the prototype to spark discussions of what does make a page accessible for them.

You may find you are limited in how closely you can replicate the design based on the tools you use or lack of access to developer assistance. When facing these limitations, consider what is most important to evaluate and determine if a paired-down version of the site will still give you valuable feedback over no site at all.

Use Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz (WoZ) research method involves the facilitators mimicking system interactions in place of a fully working system. With WoZ, you can create your system’s approximate functionality using equivalent accessible tools and processes.

As an example, I’ll refer you to the talk by an Ally Financial research team that used this method for participants who used screen readers. They pre-programmed screen reader prompts into a clickable spreadsheet and had participants describe aloud what keyboard actions they would take to then trigger the corresponding prompt. While not the ideal set-up for the participants or researchers, it at least brought screen reader user feedback (and recognition of the users themselves) to the early design phases of their work. For more, review their detailed talk “Removing bias with wizard of oz screen reader usability testing”.

This isn’t just limited to screen reader testing, however. In fact, I’ve also often used Wizard of Oz for Voice User Interface (VUI) design. For instance, when I helped create an Alexa “skill” (their name for an app on Amazon speech-enabled devices), our prototype wouldn’t be ready in time for user testing. So, I drafted an idea to use a Bluetooth speaker to announce prompts from a clickable spreadsheet instead. When participants spoke a command to the speaker (thinking it was an Alexa device), the facilitator would select the appropriate pre-recorded prompt or a generic “I don’t understand” message.

Any system can be mimicked when you break down its parts and pieces and think about the ultimate interaction for the user. Creating WoZ set-ups can take creativity and even significant time to put together, but the outcomes can be worth it, particularly for longer-term projects. Once the main pieces are created, the prototype set-up can be edited and reused indefinitely, including during the study or between participants. Also, the investment in an easily edited prototype pays off exponentially if it uncovers something prior to finishing the entire product. In fact, that’s the main goal of this phase of testing: to help teams know what to look out for before they go through the hard work of finishing the product.

Inclusive Research Can No Longer Wait

Much has been documented about inclusive design to help teams craft technology for the widest possible audience. From the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that help define what it means to be accessible to the Microsoft Inclusive Design Toolkits that tell the human stories behind the guidelines, there is much to learn even before a product begins.

However, the best approach is with direct user feedback. With this, we must recognize the conundrum many researchers are facing: We want to include disabled participants in UX research prior to a product being complete, but often, prototypes we have available for testing are inaccessible. This means testing with something that is essentially broken and will negatively impact our findings.

While it may feel like researchers will always be at a disadvantage if we don’t have the tools we need for testing, I think, instead, it’s time for us to push back. I propose we do this on two fronts:

1. We make the research work as best we can in the current state.
2. We advocate for the tools we need to make this more streamlined.

The key is to get disabled perspectives on the record and in the dataset of team members making the decisions. By doing this, hopefully, we shift the culture to wanting and valuing this feedback and bringing awareness to what it takes to make it happen.

Ideally, the awareness raised from our bootstrap efforts will lead to more people helping reduce the current prototype barriers. For some of us, this means urging companies to prioritize accessibility features in their roadmaps. For those working within influential prototype companies, it can mean getting much-needed backing to innovate better in this area.

The current state of our inaccessible digital ecosystem can sometimes feel like an entanglement too big to unravel. However, we must remain steadfast and insist that this does not remain the status quo; disabled users are users, and their diverse and invaluable perspectives must be a part of our research outcomes at all phases.

(yk)

When copying text from a website to your device’s clipboard, there’s a good chance that you will get the formatted HTML when pasting it. Some apps and operating systems have a “Paste Special” feature that will strip those tags out for you to maintain the current style, but what do you do if that’s unavailable?

Same goes for converting plain text into formatted HTML. One of the closest ways we can convert plain text into HTML is writing in Markdown as an abstraction. You may have seen examples of this in many comment forms in articles just like this one. Write the comment in Markdown and it is parsed as HTML.

Even better would be no abstraction at all! You may have also seen (and used) a number of online tools that take plainly written text and convert it into formatted HTML. The UI makes the conversion and previews the formatted result in real time.

Providing a way for users to author basic web content — like comments — without knowing even the first thing about HTML, is a novel pursuit as it lowers barriers to communicating and collaborating on the web. Saying it helps “democratize” the web may be heavy-handed, but it doesn’t conflict with that vision!

We can build a tool like this ourselves. I’m all for using existing resources where possible, but I’m also for demonstrating how these things work and maybe learning something new in the process.

Defining The Scope

There are plenty of assumptions and considerations that could go into a plain-text-to-HTML converter. For example, should we assume that the first line of text entered into the tool is a title that needs corresponding <h1> tags? Is each new line truly a paragraph, and how does linking content fit into this?

Again, the idea is that a user should be able to write without knowing Markdown or HTML syntax. This is a big constraint, and there are far too many HTML elements we might encounter, so it’s worth knowing the context in which the content is being used. For example, if this is a tool for writing blog posts, then we can limit the scope of which elements are supported based on those that are commonly used in long-form content: <h1>, <p>, <a>, and <img>. In other words, it will be possible to include top-level headings, body text, linked text, and images. There will be no support for bulleted or ordered lists, tables, or any other elements for this particular tool.

The front-end implementation will rely on vanilla HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to establish a small form with a simple layout and functionality that converts the text to HTML. There is a server-side aspect to this if you plan on deploying it to a production environment, but our focus is purely on the front end.

Looking At Existing Solutions

There are existing ways to accomplish this. For example, some libraries offer a WYSIWYG editor. Import a library like TinyMCE with a single <script> and you’re good to go. WYSIWYG editors are powerful and support all kinds of formatting, even applying CSS classes to content for styling.

But TinyMCE isn’t the most efficient package at about 500 KB minified. That’s not a criticism as much as an indication of how much functionality it covers. We want something more “barebones” than that for our simple purpose. Searching GitHub surfaces more possibilities. The solutions, however, seem to fall into one of two categories:

• The input accepts plain text, but the generated HTML only supports the HTML <h1> and <p> tags.
• The input converts plain text into formatted HTML, but by ”plain text,” the tool seems to mean “Markdown” (or a variety of it) instead. The txt2html Perl module (from 1994!) would fall under this category.

Even if a perfect solution for what we want was already out there, I’d still want to pick apart the concept of converting text to HTML to understand how it works and hopefully learn something new in the process. So, let’s proceed with our own homespun solution.

Setting Up The HTML

We’ll start with the HTML structure for the input and output. For the input element, we’re probably best off using a <textarea>. For the output element and related styling, choices abound. The following is merely one example with some very basic CSS to place the input <textarea> on the left and an output <div> on the right:

You can further develop the CSS, but that isn’t the focus of this article. There is no question that the design can be prettier than what I am providing here!

Capture The Plain Text Input

We’ll set an onkeyup event handler on the <textarea> to call a JavaScript function called convert() that does what it says: convert the plain text into HTML. The conversion function should accept one parameter, a string, for the user’s plain text input entered into the <textarea> element:

<textarea onkeyup='convert(this.value);'></textarea>

onkeyup is a better choice than onkeydown in this case, as onkeyup will call the conversion function after the user completes each keystroke, as opposed to before it happens. This way, the output, which is refreshed with each keystroke, always includes the latest typed character. If the conversion is triggered with an onkeydown handler, the output will exclude the most recent character the user typed. This can be frustrating when, for example, the user has finished typing a sentence but cannot yet see the final punctuation mark, say a period (.), in the output until typing another character first. This creates the impression of a typo, glitch, or lag when there is none.

In JavaScript, the convert() function has the following responsibilities:

1. Encode the input in HTML.
2. Process the input line-by-line and wrap each individual line in either a <h1> or <p> HTML tag, whichever is most appropriate.
3. Process the output of the transformations as a single string, wrap URLs in HTML <a> tags, and replace image file names with <img> elements.

And from there, we display the output. We can create separate functions for each responsibility. Let’s name them accordingly:

1. html_encode()
2. convert_text_to_HTML()
3. convert_images_and_links_to_HTML()

Each function accepts one parameter, a string, and returns a string.

Encoding The Input Into HTML

Use the html_encode() function to HTML encode/sanitize the input. HTML encoding refers to the process of escaping or replacing certain characters in a string input to prevent users from inserting their own HTML into the output. At a minimum, we should replace the following characters:

• < with <
• > with >
• & with &
• ' with '
• " with "

JavaScript does not provide a built-in way to HTML encode input as other languages do. For example, PHP has htmlspecialchars(), htmlentities(), and strip_tags() functions. That said, it is relatively easy to write our own function that does this, which is what we’ll use the html_encode() function for that we defined earlier:

function html_encode(input) {
  const textArea = document.createElement("textarea");
  textArea.innerText = input;
  return textArea.innerHTML.split("<br>").join("n");
}

HTML encoding of the input is a critical security consideration. It prevents unwanted scripts or other HTML manipulations from getting injected into our work. Granted, front-end input sanitization and validation are both merely deterrents because bad actors can bypass them. But we may as well make them work a little harder.

As long as we are on the topic of securing our work, make sure to HTML-encode the input on the back end, where the user cannot interfere. At the same time, take care not to encode the input more than once. Encoding text that is already HTML-encoded will break the output functionality. The best approach for back-end storage is for the front end to pass the raw, unencoded input to the back end, then ask the back-end to HTML-encode the input before inserting it into a database.

That said, this only accounts for sanitizing and storing the input on the back end. We still have to display the encoded HTML output on the front end. There are at least two approaches to consider:

1. Convert the input to HTML after HTML-encoding it and before it is inserted into a database.
   This is efficient, as the input only needs to be converted once. However, this is also an inflexible approach, as updating the HTML becomes difficult if the output requirements happen to change in the future.
2. Store only the HTML-encoded input text in the database and dynamically convert it to HTML before displaying the output for each content request.
   This is less efficient, as the conversion will occur on each request. However, it is also more flexible since it’s possible to update how the input text is converted to HTML if requirements change.

Applying Semantic HTML Tags

Let’s use the convert_text_to_HTML() function we defined earlier to wrap each line in their respective HTML tags, which are going to be either <h1> or <p>. To determine which tag to use, we will split the text input on the newline character (n) so that the text is processed as an array of lines rather than a single string, allowing us to evaluate them individually.

function convert_text_to_HTML(txt) {
  // Output variable
  let out = '';
  // Split text at the newline character into an array
  const txt_array = txt.split("n");
  // Get the number of lines in the array
  const txt_array_length = txt_array.length;
  // Variable to keep track of the (non-blank) line number
  let non_blank_line_count = 0;
  
  for (let i = 0; i < txt_array_length; i++) {
    // Get the current line
    const line = txt_array[i];
    // Continue if a line contains no text characters
    if (line === ''){
      continue;
    }
    
    non_blank_line_count++;
    // If a line is the first line that contains text
    if (non_blank_line_count === 1){
      // ...wrap the line of text in a Heading 1 tag
      out += `<h1>${line}</h1>`;
      // ...otherwise, wrap the line of text in a Paragraph tag.
    } else {
      out += `<p>${line}</p>`;
    }
  }

  return out;
}

In short, this little snippet loops through the array of split text lines and ignores lines that do not contain any text characters. From there, we can evaluate whether a line is the first one in the series. If it is, we slap a <h1> tag on it; otherwise, we mark it up in a <p> tag.

This logic could be used to account for other types of elements that you may want to include in the output. For example, perhaps the second line is assumed to be a byline that names the author and links up to an archive of all author posts.

Tagging URLs And Images With Regular Expressions

Next, we’re going to create our convert_images_and_links_to_HTML() function to encode URLs and images as HTML elements. It’s a good chunk of code, so I’ll drop it in and we’ll immediately start picking it apart together to explain how it all works.

function convert_images_and_links_to_HTML(string){
  let urls_unique = [];
  let images_unique = [];
  const urls = string.match(/https*://[^s<),]+[^s<),.]/gmi) ?? [];
  const imgs = string.match(/[^"'>s]+.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|webp)/gmi) ?? [];
                          
  const urls_length = urls.length;
  const images_length = imgs.length;
  
  for (let i = 0; i < urls_length; i++){
    const url = urls[i];
    if (!urls_unique.includes(url)){
      urls_unique.push(url);
    }
  }
  
  for (let i = 0; i < images_length; i++){
    const img = imgs[i];
    if (!images_unique.includes(img)){
      images_unique.push(img);
    }
  }
  
  const urls_unique_length = urls_unique.length;
  const images_unique_length = images_unique.length;
  
  for (let i = 0; i < urls_unique_length; i++){
    const url = urls_unique[i];
    if (images_unique_length === 0 || !images_unique.includes(url)){
      const a_tag = `<a href="${url}" target="_blank">${url}</a>`;
      string = string.replace(url, a_tag);
    }
  }
  
  for (let i = 0; i < images_unique_length; i++){
    const img = images_unique[i];
    const img_tag = `<img src="${img}" alt="">`;
    const img_link = `<a href="${img}">${img_tag}</a>`;
    string = string.replace(img, img_link);
  }
  return string;
}

Unlike the convert_text_to_HTML() function, here we use regular expressions to identify the terms that need to be wrapped and/or replaced with <a> or <img> tags. We do this for a couple of reasons:

1. The previous convert_text_to_HTML() function handles text that would be transformed to the HTML block-level elements <h1> and <p>, and, if you want, other block-level elements such as <address>. Block-level elements in the HTML output correspond to discrete lines of text in the input, which you can think of as paragraphs, the text entered between presses of the Enter key.
2. On the other hand, URLs in the text input are often included in the middle of a sentence rather than on a separate line. Images that occur in the input text are often included on a separate line, but not always. While you could identify text that represents URLs and images by processing the input line-by-line — or even word-by-word, if necessary — it is easier to use regular expressions and process the entire input as a single string rather than by individual lines.

Regular expressions, though they are powerful and the appropriate tool to use for this job, come with a performance cost, which is another reason to use each expression only once for the entire text input.

Remember: All the JavaScript in this example runs each time the user types a character, so it is important to keep things as lightweight and efficient as possible.

I also want to make a note about the variable names in our convert_images_and_links_to_HTML() function. images (plural), image (singular), and link are reserved words in JavaScript. Consequently, imgs, img, and a_tag were used for naming. Interestingly, these specific reserved words are not listed on the relevant MDN page, but they are on W3Schools.

We’re using the String.prototype.match() function for each of the two regular expressions, then storing the results for each call in an array. From there, we use the nullish coalescing operator (??) on each call so that, if no matches are found, the result will be an empty array. If we do not do this and no matches are found, the result of each match() call will be null and will cause problems downstream.

const urls = string.match(/https*://[^s<),]+[^s<),.]/gmi) ?? [];
const imgs = string.match(/[^"'>s]+.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|webp)/gmi) ?? [];

Next up, we filter the arrays of results so that each array contains only unique results. This is a critical step. If we don’t filter out duplicate results and the input text contains multiple instances of the same URL or image file name, then we break the HTML tags in the output. JavaScript does not provide a simple, built-in method to get unique items in an array that’s akin to the PHP array_unique() function.

The code snippet works around this limitation using an admittedly ugly but straightforward procedural approach. The same problem is solved using a more functional approach if you prefer. There are many articles on the web describing various ways to filter a JavaScript array in order to keep only the unique items.

We’re also checking if the URL is matched as an image before replacing a URL with an appropriate <a> tag and performing the replacement only if the URL doesn’t match an image. We may be able to avoid having to perform this check by using a more intricate regular expression. The example code deliberately uses regular expressions that are perhaps less precise but hopefully easier to understand in an effort to keep things as simple as possible.

And, finally, we’re replacing image file names in the input text with <img> tags that have the src attribute set to the image file name. For example, my_image.png in the input is transformed into <img src='my_image.png'> in the output. We wrap each <img> tag with an <a> tag that links to the image file and opens it in a new tab when clicked.

There are a couple of benefits to this approach:

• In a real-world scenario, you will likely use a CSS rule to constrain the size of the rendered image. By making the images clickable, you provide users with a convenient way to view the full-size image.
• If the image is not a local file but is instead a URL to an image from a third party, this is a way to implicitly provide attribution. Ideally, you should not rely solely on this method but, instead, provide explicit attribution underneath the image in a <figcaption>, <cite>, or similar element. But if, for whatever reason, you are unable to provide explicit attribution, you are at least providing a link to the image source.

It may go without saying, but “hotlinking” images is something to avoid. Use only locally hosted images wherever possible, and provide attribution if you do not hold the copyright for them.

Before we move on to displaying the converted output, let’s talk a bit about accessibility, specifically the image alt attribute. The example code I provided does add an alt attribute in the conversion but does not populate it with a value, as there is no easy way to automatically calculate what that value should be. An empty alt attribute can be acceptable if the image is considered “decorative,” i.e., purely supplementary to the surrounding text. But one may argue that there is no such thing as a purely decorative image.

That said, I consider this to be a limitation of what we’re building.

Displaying the Output HTML

We’re at the point where we can finally work on displaying the HTML-encoded output! We’ve already handled all the work of converting the text, so all we really need to do now is call it:

function convert(input_string) {
  output.innerHTML = convert_images_and_links_to_HTML(convert_text_to_HTML(html_encode(input_string)));
}

If you would rather display the output string as raw HTML markup, use a <pre> tag as the output element instead of a <div>:

<pre id='output'></pre>

The only thing to note about this approach is that you would target the <pre> element’s textContent instead of innerHTML:

function convert(input_string) {
  output.textContent = convert_images_and_links_to_HTML(convert_text_to_HTML(html_encode(input_string)));
}

Conclusion

We did it! We built one of the same sort of copy-paste tool that converts plain text on the spot. In this case, we’ve configured it so that plain text entered into a <textarea> is parsed line-by-line and encoded into HTML that we format and display inside another element.

We were even able to keep the solution fairly simple, i.e., vanilla HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, without reaching for a third-party library or framework. Does this simple solution do everything a ready-made tool like a framework can do? Absolutely not. But a solution as simple as this is often all you need: nothing more and nothing less.

As far as scaling this further, the code could be modified to POST what’s entered into the <form> using a PHP script or the like. That would be a great exercise, and if you do it, please share your work with me in the comments because I’d love to check it out.

References

• “How to HTML-encode a String” (W3Docs)
• “How to escape & unescape HTML characters in string in JavaScript” (Educative.io)
• “How to get all unique values (remove duplicates) in a JavaScript array?”” (GeeksforGeeks)
• “Getting Unique Array Values in Javascript and Typescript,” Chris Engelsma
• “Threats of Using Regular Expressions in JavaScript,” Dulanka Karunasena

(gg, yk)

Many modern websites give users the power to set a site-specific color scheme preference. A basic implementation is straightforward with JavaScript: listen for when a user changes a checkbox or clicks a button, toggle a class (or attribute) on the <body> element in response, and write the styles for that class to override design with a different color scheme.

CSS’s new :has() pseudo-class, supported by major browsers since December 2023, opens many doors for front-end developers. I’m especially excited about leveraging it to modify UI in response to user interaction without JavaScript. Where previously we have used JavaScript to toggle classes or attributes (or to set styles directly), we can now pair :has() selectors with HTML’s native interactive elements.

Supporting a color scheme preference, like “Dark Mode,” is a great use case. We can use a <select> element anywhere that toggles color schemes based on the selected <option> — no JavaScript needed, save for a sprinkle to save the user’s choice, which we’ll get to further in.

Respecting System Preferences

First, we’ll support a user’s system-wide color scheme preferences by adopting a “Light Mode”-first approach. In other words, we start with a light color scheme by default and swap it out for a dark color scheme for users who prefer it.

The prefers-color-scheme media feature detects the user’s system preference. Wrap “dark” styles in a prefers-color-scheme: dark media query.

selector {
  /* light styles */

  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    /* dark styles */
  }
}

Next, set the color-scheme property to match the preferred color scheme. Setting color-scheme: dark switches the browser into its built-in dark mode, which includes a black default background, white default text, “dark” styles for scrollbars, and other elements that are difficult to target with CSS, and more. I’m using CSS variables to hint that the value is dynamic — and because I like the browser developer tools experience — but plain color-scheme: light and color-scheme: dark would work fine.

:root {
  /* light styles here */
  color-scheme: var(--color-scheme, light);
  
  /* system preference is "dark" */
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    --color-scheme: dark;
    /* any additional dark styles here */
  }
}

Giving Users Control

Now, to support overriding the system preference, let users choose between light (default) and dark color schemes at the page level.

HTML has native elements for handling user interactions. Using one of those controls, rather than, say, a <div> nest, improves the chances that assistive tech users will have a good experience. I’ll use a <select> menu with options for “system,” “light,” and “dark.” A group of <input type="radio"> would work, too, if you wanted the options right on the surface instead of a dropdown menu.

<select id="color-scheme">
  <option value="system" selected>System</option>
  <option value="light">Light</option>
  <option value="dark">Dark</option>
</select>

Before CSS gained :has(), responding to the user’s selected <option> required JavaScript, for example, setting an event listener on the <select> to toggle a class or attribute on <html> or <body>.

But now that we have :has(), we can now do this with CSS alone! You’ll save spending any of your performance budget on a dark mode script, plus the control will work even for users who have disabled JavaScript. And any “no-JS” folks on the project will be satisfied.

What we need is a selector that applies to the page when it :has() a select menu with a particular [value]:checked. Let’s translate that into CSS:

:root:has(select option[value="dark"]:checked)

We’re defaulting to a light color scheme, so it’s enough to account for two possible dark color scheme scenarios:

1. The page-level color preference is “system,” and the system-level preference is “dark.”
2. The page-level color preference is “dark”.

The first one is a page-preference-aware iteration of our prefers-color-scheme: dark case. A “dark” system-level preference is no longer enough to warrant dark styles; we need a “dark” system-level preference and a “follow the system-level preference” at the page-level preference. We’ll wrap the prefers-color-scheme media query dark scheme styles with the :has() selector we just wrote:

:root {
  /* light styles here */
  color-scheme: var(--color-scheme, light);
    
  /* page preference is "system", and system preference is "dark" */
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    &:has(#color-scheme option[value="system"]:checked) {
      --color-scheme: dark;
      /* any additional dark styles, again */
    }
  }
}

Notice that I’m using CSS Nesting in that last snippet. Baseline 2023 has it pegged as “Newly available across major browsers” which means support is good, but at the time of writing, support on Android browsers not included in Baseline’s core browser set is limited. You can get the same result without nesting.

:root {
  /* light styles */
  color-scheme: var(--color-scheme, light);
    
  /* page preference is "dark" */
  &:has(#color-scheme option[value="dark"]:checked) {
    --color-scheme: dark;
    /* any additional dark styles */
  }
}

For the second dark mode scenario, we’ll use nearly the exact same :has() selector as we did for the first scenario, this time checking whether the “dark” option — rather than the “system” option — is selected:

:root {
  /* light styles */
  color-scheme: var(--color-scheme, light);
    
  /* page preference is "dark" */
  &:has(#color-scheme option[value="dark"]:checked) {
    --color-scheme: dark;
    /* any additional dark styles */
  }
    
  /* page preference is "system", and system preference is "dark" */
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    &:has(#color-scheme option[value="system"]:checked) {
      --color-scheme: dark;
      /* any additional dark styles, again */
    }
  }
}

Now the page’s styles respond to both changes in users’ system settings and user interaction with the page’s color preference UI — all with CSS!

But the colors change instantly. Let’s smooth the transition.

Respecting Motion Preferences

Instantaneous style changes can feel inelegant in some cases, and this is one of them. So, let’s apply a CSS transition on the :root to “ease” the switch between color schemes. (Transition styles at the :root will cascade down to the rest of the page, which may necessitate adding transition: none or other transition overrides.)

Note that the CSS color-scheme property does not support transitions.

:root {
  transition-duration: 200ms;
  transition-property: /* properties changed by your light/dark styles */;
}

Not all users will consider the addition of a transition a welcome improvement. Querying the prefers-reduced-motion media feature allows us to account for a user’s motion preferences. If the value is set to reduce, then we remove the transition-duration to eliminate unwanted motion.

:root {
  transition-duration: 200ms;
  transition-property: /* properties changed by your light/dark styles */;
    
  @media screen and (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) {
    transition-duration: none;
  }
}

Transitions can also produce poor user experiences on devices that render changes slowly, for example, ones with e-ink screens. We can extend our “no motion condition” media query to account for that with the update media feature. If its value is slow, then we remove the transition-duration.

:root {
  transition-duration: 200ms;
  transition-property: /* properties changed by your light/dark styles */;
    
  @media screen and (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce), (update: slow) {
    transition-duration: 0s;
  }
}

Let’s try out what we have so far in the following demo. Notice that, to work around color-scheme’s lack of transition support, I’ve explicitly styled the properties that should transition during theme changes.

Not bad! But what happens if the user refreshes the pages or navigates to another page? The reload effectively wipes out the user’s form selection, forcing the user to re-make the selection. That may be acceptable in some contexts, but it’s likely to go against user expectations. Let’s bring in JavaScript for a touch of progressive enhancement in the form of…

Persistence

Here’s a vanilla JavaScript implementation. It’s a naive starting point — the functions and variables aren’t encapsulated but are instead properties on window. You’ll want to adapt this in a way that fits your site’s conventions, framework, library, and so on.

When the user changes the color scheme from the <select> menu, we’ll store the selected <option> value in a new localStorage item called "preferredColorScheme". On subsequent page loads, we’ll check localStorage for the "preferredColorScheme" item. If it exists, and if its value corresponds to one of the form control options, we restore the user’s preference by programmatically updating the menu selection.

/*
 * If a color scheme preference was previously stored,
 * select the corresponding option in the color scheme preference UI
 * unless it is already selected.
 */
function restoreColorSchemePreference() {
  const colorScheme = localStorage.getItem(colorSchemeStorageItemName);

  if (!colorScheme) {
    // There is no stored preference to restore
    return;
  }

  const option = colorSchemeSelectorEl.querySelector(`[value=${colorScheme}]`);  

  if (!option) {
    // The stored preference has no corresponding option in the UI.
    localStorage.removeItem(colorSchemeStorageItemName);
    return;
  }

  if (option.selected) {  
    // The stored preference's corresponding menu option is already selected
    return;
  }

  option.selected = true;
}

/*
 * Store an event target's value in localStorage under colorSchemeStorageItemName
 */
function storeColorSchemePreference({ target }) {
  const colorScheme = target.querySelector(":checked").value;
  localStorage.setItem(colorSchemeStorageItemName, colorScheme);
}

// The name under which the user's color scheme preference will be stored.
const colorSchemeStorageItemName = "preferredColorScheme";

// The color scheme preference front-end UI.
const colorSchemeSelectorEl = document.querySelector("#color-scheme");

if (colorSchemeSelectorEl) {
  restoreColorSchemePreference();

  // When the user changes their color scheme preference via the UI,
  // store the new preference.
  colorSchemeSelectorEl.addEventListener("input", storeColorSchemePreference);
}

Let’s try that out. Open this demo (perhaps in a new window), use the menu to change the color scheme, and then refresh the page to see your preference persist:

If your system color scheme preference is “light” and you set the demo’s color scheme to “dark,” you may get the light mode styles for a moment immediately after reloading the page before the dark mode styles kick in. That’s because CodePen loads its own JavaScript before the demo’s scripts. That is out of my control, but you can take care to improve this persistence on your projects.

Persistence Performance Considerations

Where things can get tricky is restoring the user’s preference immediately after the page loads. If the color scheme preference in localStorage is different from the user’s system-level color scheme preference, it’s possible the user will see the system preference color scheme before the page-level preference is restored. (Users who have selected the “System” option will never get that flash; neither will those whose system settings match their selected option in the form control.)

If your implementation is showing a “flash of inaccurate color theme”, where is the problem happening? Generally speaking, the earlier the scripts appear on the page, the lower the risk. The “best option” for you will depend on your specific stack, of course.

What About Browsers That Don’t Support :has()?

All major browsers support :has() today Lean into modern platforms if you can. But if you do need to consider legacy browsers, like Internet Explorer, there are two directions you can go: either hide or remove the color scheme picker for those browsers or make heavier use of JavaScript.

If you consider color scheme support itself a progressive enhancement, you can entirely hide the selection UI in browsers that don’t support :has():

@supports not selector(:has(body)) {
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    :root {
      /* dark styles here */
    }
  }

  #color-scheme {
    display: none;
  }
}

Otherwise, you’ll need to rely on a JavaScript solution not only for persistence but for the core functionality. Go back to that traditional event listener toggling a class or attribute.

The CSS-Tricks “Complete Guide to Dark Mode” details several alternative approaches that you might consider as well when working on the legacy side of things.

(gg, yk)

A fun fact about me is that my birthday is on Valentine’s Day. This year, I wanted to celebrate by launching a simple website that lets people receive anonymous letters through a personal link. The idea came up to me at the beginning of February, so I wanted to finish the project as soon as possible since time was of the essence.

Having that in mind, I decided not to do SSR/SSG with Gatsby for the project but rather go with a single-page application (SPA) using Vite and React — a rather hard decision considering my extensive experience with Gatsby. Years ago, when I started using React and learning more and more about today’s intricate web landscape, I picked up Gatsby.js as my render framework of choice because SSR/SSG was necessary for every website, right?

I used it for everything, from the most basic website to the most over-engineered project. I absolutely loved it and thought it was the best tool, and I was incredibly confident in my decision since I was getting perfect Lighthouse scores in the process.

The years passed, and I found myself constantly fighting with Gatsby plugins, resorting to hacky solutions for them and even spending more time waiting for the server to start. It felt like I was fixing more than making. I even started a series for this magazine all about the “Gatsby headaches” I experienced most and how to overcome them.

It was like Gatsby got tougher to use with time because of lots of unaddressed issues: outdated dependencies, cold starts, slow builds, and stale plugins, to name a few. Starting a Gatsby project became tedious for me, and perfect Lighthouse scores couldn’t make up for that.

So, I’ve decided to stop using Gatsby as my go-to framework.

To my surprise, the Vite + React combination I mentioned earlier turned out to be a lot more efficient than I expected while maintaining almost the same great performance measures as Gatsby. It’s a hard conclusion to stomach after years of Gatsby’s loyalty.

I mean, I still think Gatsby is extremely useful for plenty of projects, and I plan on talking about those in a bit. But Gatsby has undergone a series of recent unfortunate events after Netlify acquired it, the impacts of which can be seen in down-trending results from the most recent State of JavaScript survey. The likelihood of a developer picking up Gatsby again after using it for other projects plummeted from 89% to a meager 38% between 2019 and 2022 alone.

Although Gatsby was still the second most-used rendering framework as recently as 2022 — we are still expecting results from the 2023 survey — my prediction is that the decline will continue and dip well below 38%.

Seeing as this is my personal farewell to Gatsby, I wanted to write about where, in my opinion, it went wrong, where it is still useful, and how I am handling my future projects.

Gatsby: A Retrospective

Kyle Mathews started working on what would eventually become Gatsby in late 2015. Thanks to its unique data layer and SSG approach, it was hyped for success and achieved a $3.8 million funding seed round in 2018. Despite initial doubts, Gatsby remained steadfast in its commitment and became a frontrunner in the Jamstack community by consistently enhancing its open-source framework and bringing new and better changes with each version.

So… where did it all go wrong?

I’d say it was the introduction of Gatsby Cloud in 2019, as Gatsby aimed at generating continuous revenue and solidifying its business model. Many (myself included) pinpoint Gatsby’s downfall to Gatsby Cloud, as it would end up cutting resources from the main framework and even making it harder to host in other cloud providers.

The core framework had been optimized in a way that using Gatsby and Gatsby Cloud together required no additional hosting configurations, which, as a consequence, made deployments in other platforms much more difficult, both by neglecting to provide documentation for third-party deployments and by releasing exclusive features, like incremental builds, that were only available to Gatsby users who had committed to using Gatsby Cloud. In short, hosting projects on anything but Gatsby Cloud felt like a penalty.

As a framework, Gatsby lost users to Next.js, as shown in both surveys and npm trends, while Gatsby Cloud struggled to compete with the likes of Vercel and Netlify; the former acquiring Gatsby in February of 2023.

“It [was] clear after a while that [Gatsby] weren’t winning the framework battle against Vercel, as a general purpose framework […] And they were probably a bit boxed in by us in terms of building a cloud platform.”

— Matt Biilmann, Netlify CEO

The Netlify acquisition was the last straw in an already tumbling framework haystack. The migration from Gatsby Cloud to Netlify wasn’t pretty for customers either; some teams were charged 120% more — or had incurred extraneous fees — after converting from Gatsby Cloud to Netlify, even with the same Gatsby Cloud plan they had! Many key Gatsby Cloud features, specifically incremental builds that reduced build times of small changes from minutes to seconds, were simply no longer available in Netlify, despite Kyle Mathews saying they would be ported over to Netlify:

“Many performance innovations specifically for large, content-heavy websites, preview, and collaboration workflows, will be incorporated into the Netlify platform and, where relevant, made available across frameworks.”

— Kyle Mathews

However, in a Netlify forum thread dated August 2023, a mere six months after the acquisition, a Netlify support engineer contradicted Mathews’s statement, saying there were no plans to add incremental features in Netlify.

That left no significant reason to remain with Gatsby. And I think this comment on the same thread perfectly sums up the community’s collective sentiment:

“Yikes. Huge blow to Gatsby Cloud customers. The incremental build speed was exactly why we switched from Netlify to Gatsby Cloud in the first place. It’s really unfortunate to be forced to migrate while simultaneously introducing a huge regression in performance and experience.”

Netlify’s acquisition also brought about a company restructuring that substantially reduced the headcount of Gatsby’s engineering team, followed by a complete stop in commit activities. A report in an ominous tweet by Astro co-founder Fred Schott further exacerbated concerns about Gatsby’s future.

Lennart Jörgens, former full-stack developer at Gatsby and Netlify, replied, insinuating there was only one person left after the layoffs:

You can see all these factors contributing to Gatsby’s usage downfall in the 2023 Stack Overflow survey.

Biilmann addressed the community’s concerns about Gatsby’s viability in an open issue from the Gatsby repository:

“While we don’t plan for Gatsby to be where the main innovation in the framework ecosystem takes place, it will be a safe, robust and reliable choice to build production quality websites and e-commerce stores, and will gain new powers by ways of great complementary tools.”

— Matt Biilmann

He also shed light on Gatsby’s future focus:

• “First, ensure stability, predictability, and good performance.
• Second, give it new powers by strong integration with all new tooling that we add to our Composable Web Platform (for more on what’s all that, you can check out our homepage).
• Third, make Gatsby more open by decoupling some parts of it that were closely tied to proprietary cloud infrastructure. The already-released Adapters feature is part of that effort.”

— Matt Biilmann

So, Gatsby gave up competing against Next.js on innovation, and instead, it will focus on keeping the existing framework clean and steady in its current state. Frankly, this seems like the most reasonable course of action considering today’s state of affairs.

Why Did People Stop Using Gatsby?

Yes, Gatsby Cloud ended abruptly, but as a framework independent of its cloud provider, other aspects encouraged developers to look for alternatives to Gatsby.

As far as I am concerned, Gatsby’s developer experience (DX) became more of a burden than a help, and there are two main culprits where I lay the blame: dependency hell and slow bundling times.

Dependency Hell

Go ahead and start a new Gatsby project:

gatsby new

After waiting a couple of minutes you will get your brand new Gatsby site. You’d rightly expect to have a clean slate with zero vulnerabilities and outdated dependencies with this out-of-the-box setup, but here’s what you will find in the terminal once you run npm audit:

18 vulnerabilities (11 moderate, 6 high, 1 critical)

That looks concerning — and it is — not so much from a security perspective but as an indication of decaying DX. As a static site generator (SSG), Gatsby will, unsurprisingly, deliver a static and safe site that (normally) doesn’t have access to a database or server, making it immune to most cyber attacks. Besides, lots of those vulnerabilities are in the developer tools and never reach the end user. Alas, relying on npm audit to assess your site security is a naive choice at best.

However, those vulnerabilities reveal an underlying issue: the whopping number of dependencies Gatsby uses is 168(!) at the time I’m writing this. For the sake of comparison, Next.js uses 16 dependencies. A lot of Gatsby’s dependencies are outdated, hence the warnings, but trying to update them to their latest versions will likely unleash a dependency hell full of additional npm warnings and errors.

In a related subreddit from 2022, a user asked, “Is it possible to have a Gatsby site without vulnerabilities?”

The real answer is disappointing, but as of March 2024, it remains true.

A Gatsby site should work completely fine, even with that many dependencies, and extending your project shouldn’t be a problem, whether through its plugin ecosystem or other packages. However, when trying to upgrade any existing dependency you will find that you can’t! Or at least you can’t do it without introducing breaking changes to one of the 168 dependencies, many of which rely on outdated versions of other libraries that also cannot be updated.

It’s that inception-like roundabout of dependencies that I call dependency hell.

Slow Build And Development Times

To me, one of the most important aspects of choosing a development tool is how comfortable it feels to use it and how fast it is to get a project up and running. As I’ve said before, users don’t care or know what a “tech stack” is or what framework is in use; they want a good-looking website that helps them achieve the task they came for. Many developers don’t even question what tech stack is used on each site they visit; at least, I hope not.

With that in mind, choosing a framework boils down to how efficiently you can use it. If your development server constantly experiences cold starts and crashes and is unable to quickly reflect changes, that’s a poor DX and a signal that there may be a better option.

That’s the main reason I won’t automatically reach for Gatsby from here on out. Installation is no longer a trivial task; the dependencies are firing off warnings, and it takes the development server upwards of 30 seconds to boot. I’ve even found that the longer the server runs, the slower it gets; this happens constantly to me, though I admittedly have not heard similar gripes from other developers. Regardless, I get infuriated having to constantly restart my development server every time I make a change to gatsby-config.js, gatsby-node.js files, or any other data source.

This new reality is particularly painful, knowing that a Vite.js + React setup can start a server within 500ms thanks to the use of esbuild.

Running gatsby build gets worse. Build times for larger projects normally take some number of minutes, which is understandable when we consider all of the pages, data sources, and optimizations Gatsby does behind the scenes. However, even a small content edit to a page triggers a full build and deployment process, and the endless waiting is not only exhausting but downright distracting for getting things done. That’s what incremental builds were designed to solve and the reason many people switched from Netlify to Gatsby Cloud when using Gatsby. It’s a shame we no longer have that as an available option.

The moment Gatsby Cloud was discontinued along with incremental builds, the incentives for continuing to use Gatsby became pretty much non-existent. The slow build times are simply too costly to the development workflow.

What Gatsby Did Awesomely Well

I still believe that Gatsby has awesome things that other rendering frameworks don’t, and that’s why I will keep using it, albeit for specific cases, such as my personal website. It just isn’t my go-to framework for everything, mainly because Gatsby (and the Jamstack) wasn’t meant for every project, even if Gatsby was marketed as a general-purpose framework.

Here’s where I see Gatsby still leading the competition:

• The GraphQL data layer.
  In Gatsby, all the configured data is available in the same place, a data layer that’s easy to access using GraphQL queries in any part of your project. This is by far the best Gatsby feature, and it trivializes the process of building static pages from data, e.g., a blog from a content management system API or documentation from Markdown files.
• Client performance.
  While Gatsby’s developer experience is questionable, I believe it delivers one of the best user experiences for navigating a website. Static pages and assets deliver the fastest possible load times, and using React Router with pre-rendering of proximate links offers one of the smoothest experiences navigating between pages. We also have to note Gatsby’s amazing image API, which optimizes images to all extents.
• The plugin ecosystem (kinda).
  There is typically a Gatsby plugin for everything. This is awesome when using a CMS as a data source since you could just install its specific plugin and have all the necessary data in your data layer. However, a lot of plugins went unmaintained and grew outdated, introducing unsolvable dependency issues that come with dependency hell.

I briefly glossed over the good parts of Gatsby in contrast to the bad parts. Does that mean that Gatsby has more bad parts? Absolutely not; you just won’t find the bad parts in any documentation. The bad parts also aren’t deal breakers in isolation, but they snowball into a tedious and lengthy developer experience that pushes away its advocates to other solutions or rendering frameworks.

Do We Need SSR/SSG For Everything?

I’ll go on record saying that I am not replacing Gatsby with another rendering framework, like Next.js or Remix, but just avoiding them altogether. I’ve found they aren’t actually needed in a lot of cases.

Think, why do we use any type of rendering framework in the first place? I’d say it’s for two main reasons: crawling bots and initial loading time.

SEO And Crawling Bots

Most React apps start with a hollow body, only having an empty <div> alongside <script> tags. The JavaScript code then runs in the browser, where React creates the Virtual DOM and injects the rendered user interface into the browser.

Over slow networks, users may notice a white screen before the page is actually rendered, which is just mildly annoying at best (but devastating at worst).

However, search engines like Google and Bing deploy bots that only see an empty page and decide not to crawl the content. Or, if you are linking up a post on social media, you may not get OpenGraph benefits like a link preview.

<body>
  <div id="root"></div>

  <script type="module" src="/src/main.tsx"></script>
</body>

This was the case years ago, making SSR/SSG necessary for getting noticed by Google bots. Nowadays, Google can run JavaScript and render the content to crawl your website. While using SSR or SSG does make this process faster, not all bots can run JavaScript. It’s a tradeoff you can make for a lot of projects and one you can minimize on your cloud provider by pre-rendering your content.

Initial Loading Time

Pre-rendered pages load faster since they deliver static content that relieves the browser from having to run expensive JavaScript.

It’s especially useful when loading pages that are behind authentication; in a client-side rendered (CSR) page, we would need to display a loading state while we check if the user is logged in, while an SSR page can perform the check on the server and send back the correct static content. I have found, however, that this trade-off is an uncompelling argument for using a rendering framework over a CSR React app.

In any case, my SPA built on React + Vite.js gave me a perfect Lighthouse score for the landing page. Pages that fetch data behind authentication resulted in near-perfect Core Web Vitals scores.

What Projects Gatsby Is Still Good For

Gatsby and rendering frameworks are excellent for programmatically creating pages from data and, specifically, for blogs, e-commerce, and documentation.

Don’t be disappointed, though, if it isn’t the right tool for every use case, as that is akin to blaming a screwdriver for not being a good hammer. It still has good uses, though fewer than it could due to all the reasons we discussed before.

But Gatsby is still a useful tool. If you are a Gatsby developer the main reason you’d reach for it is because you know Gatsby. Not using it might be considered an opportunity cost in economic terms:

“Opportunity cost is the value of the next-best alternative when a decision is made; it’s what is given up.”

Imagine a student who spends an hour and $30 attending a yoga class the evening before a deadline. The opportunity cost encompasses the time that could have been dedicated to completing the project and the $30 that could have been used for future expenses.

As a Gatsby developer, I could start a new project using another rendering framework like Next.js. Even if Next.js has faster server starts, I would need to factor in my learning curve to use it as efficiently as I do Gatsby. That’s why, for my latest project, I decided to avoid rendering frameworks altogether and use Vite.js + React — I wanted to avoid the opportunity cost that comes with spending time learning how to use an “unfamiliar” framework.

Conclusion

So, is Gatsby dead? Not at all, or at least I don’t think Netlify will let it go away any time soon. The acquisition and subsequent changes to Gatsby Cloud may have taken a massive toll on the core framework, but Gatsby is very much still breathing, even if the current slow commits pushed to the repo look like it’s barely alive or hibernating.

I will most likely stick to Vite.js + React for my future endeavors and only use rendering frameworks when I actually need them. What are the tradeoffs? Sacrificing negligible page performance in favor of a faster and more pleasant DX that maintains my sanity? I’ll take that deal every day.

And, of course, this is my experience as a long-time Gatsby loyalist. Your experience is likely to differ, so the mileage of everything I’m saying may vary depending on your background using Gatsby on your own projects.

That’s why I’d love for you to comment below: if you see it differently, please tell me! Is your current experience using Gatsby different, better, or worse than it was a year ago? What’s different to you, if anything? It would be awesome to get other perspectives in here, perhaps from someone who has been involved in maintaining the framework.

Further Reading On SmashingMag

• Gatsby Headaches And How To Cure Them: i18n (Part 1)
• Gatsby Headaches And How To Cure Them: i18n (Part 2)
• Gatsby Headaches: Working With Media (Part 1)
• Gatsby Headaches: Working With Media (Part 2)

(gg, yk)

Web accessibility can be challenging, particularly for clients unfamiliar with tech or compliance with The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). My role as a digital designer often involves guiding clients toward ADA-compliant web designs. I’ve acquired many strategies over the years for encouraging clients to adopt accessible web practices and invest in accessible user interfaces. It’s something that comes up with nearly every new project, and I decided to develop a personal toolkit to help me make the case.

Now, I am opening up my toolkit for you to have and use. While some of the strategies may be specific to me and my work, there are plenty more that cast a wider net and are more universally applicable. I’ve considered different real-life scenarios where I have had to make a case for accessibility. You may even personally identify with a few of them!

Please enjoy. As you do, remember that there is no silver bullet for “selling” accessibility. We can’t win everyone over with cajoling or terse arguments. My hope is that you are able to use this collection to establish partnerships with your colleagues and clients alike. Accessibility is something that anyone can influence at various stages in a project, and “winning” an argument isn’t exactly the point. It’s a bigger picture we’re after, one that influences how teams work together, changes habits, and develops a new level of empathy and understanding.

I begin with general strategies for discussing accessibility with clients. Following that, I provide specific language and responses you can use to introduce accessibility practices to your team and clients and advocate its importance while addressing client skepticism and concerns. Use it as a starting point and build off of it so that it incorporates points and scenarios that are more specific to your work. I sincerely hope it helps you advance accessible practices.

General Strategies

We’ll start with a few ways you can position yourself when interacting with clients. By adopting a certain posture, we can set ourselves up to be the experts in the room, the ones with solutions rather than arguments.

Showcasing Expertise

I tend to establish my expertise and tailor the information to the client’s understanding of accessibility, which could be not very much. For those new to accessibility, I offer a concise overview of its definition, evaluation, and business impact. For clients with a better grasp of accessible practices, I like to use the WCAG as a point of reference for helping frame productive discussions based on substance and real requirements.

Aligning With Client Goals

I connect accessibility to the client’s goals instead of presenting accessibility as a moral imperative. No one loves being told what to do, and talking to clients on their terms establishes a nice bridge for helping them connect the dots between the inherent benefits of accessible practices and what they are trying to accomplish. The two aren’t mutually exclusive!

In fact, there are many clear benefits for apps that make accessibility a first-class feature. Refer to the “Accessibility Benefits” section to help describe those benefits to your colleagues and clients.

Defining Accessibility In The Project Scope

I outline accessibility goals early, typically when defining the project scope and requirements. Baking accessibility into the project scope ensures that it is at least considered at this crucial stage where decisions are being made for everything from expected outcomes to architectural requirements.

User stories and personas are common artifacts for which designers are often responsible. Use these as opportunities to define accessibility in the same breath as defining who the users are and how they interact with the app. Framing stories and outcomes as user interactions in an “as-when-then-so” format provides an opening to lead with accessibility:

As a user, when I __________, then I expect that __________, so I can _________.

Fill in the blanks. I think you’ll find that user’s expected outcomes are typically aligned with accessible experiences. Federico Francioni published his take on developing inclusive user personas, building off other excellent resources, including Microsoft’s Inclusive Design guidelines.

Being Ready With Resources and Examples

I maintain a database of resources for clients interested in learning more about accessibility. Sharing anecdotes, such as clients who’ve seen benefits from accessibility or examples of companies penalized for non-compliance, can be very impactful.

Microsoft is helpful here once again with a collection of brief videos that cover a variety of uses, from informing your colleagues and clients on basic accessibility concepts to interviews with accessibility professionals and case studies involving real users.

There are a few go-to resources I’ve bookmarked to share with clients who are learning about accessibility for the first time. What I like about these is the approachable language and clarity. “Learn Accessibility” from web.dev is especially useful because it’s framed as a 21-part course. That may sound daunting, but it’s organized in small chunks that make it manageable, and sometimes I will simply point to the Glossary to help clients understand the concepts we discuss.

And where “Learn Accessibility” is focused on specific components of accessibility, I find that the Inclusive Design Principles site has a perfect presentation of the concepts and guiding principles of inclusion and accessibility on the web.

Meanwhile, I tend to sit beside a client to look at The A11Y Project. I pick a few resources to go through. Otherwise, the amount of information can be overwhelming. I like to offer this during a project’s planning phase because the site is focused on actionable strategies that help scope work.

• Web Accessibility: The Ultimate Guide (Kristen Baker)
• Learn Accessibility (web.dev)
• Inclusive Design Principles (Swan, Pouncy, Pickering, and Watson)
• The A11Y Project
• WebAIM Resources
• Accessibility Resources GitHub Repository (Ian Routledge)

Leveraging User Research

User research that is specific to the client’s target audience is more convincing than general statistics alone. When possible, I try to understand those user’s needs, including what they expect, what sort of technology they use to browse online, and where they are geographically. Painting a more complete picture of users — based on real-life factors and information — offers a more human perspective and plants the first seeds of empathy in the design process.

Web analytics are great for identifying who users are and how they currently interact with the app. At the same time, they are also wrought with caveats as far as accuracy goes, depending on the tool you use and how you collect your data. That said, I use the information to support my user persona decisions and the specific requirements I write. Analytics add nice brush strokes to the picture but do not paint the entire view. So, leverage it!

The big caveat with web analytics? There’s no way to identify traffic that uses assistive tech. That’s a good thing in general as far as privacy goes, but it does mean that researching the usability of your site is best done with real users — as it is with any user research, really. The A11Y Project has excellent resources for testing screen readers, including a link to this Smashing Magazine article about manual accessibility testing by Eric Bailey as well as a vast archive of links pointing to other research.

That said, web analytics can still be very useful to help accommodate other impairments, for example, segmenting traffic by age (for improving accessibility for low vision) and geography (for improving performance gaps for those on low-powered devices). WebAIM also provides insights in a report they produced from a 2018 survey of users who report having low vision.

Leaving Room For Improvements

Chances are that your project will fall at least somewhat short of your accessibility plans. It happens! I see plenty of situations where a late deadline translates into rushed work that sacrifices quality for speed, and accessibility typically falls victim to degraded quality.

I keep track of these during the project’s various stages and attempt to document them. This way, there’s already a roadmap for inclusive and accessible improvements in subsequent releases. It’s scoped, backlogged, and ready to drop into a sprint.

For projects involving large sites with numerous accessibility issues, I emphasize that partial accessibility compliance is not the same as actual compliance. I often propose phased solutions, starting with incremental changes that fit within the current scope and budget.

And remember, just because something passes a WCAG success criterion doesn’t necessarily mean it is accessible. Passing tests is a good sign, but there will always be room for improvement.

Commonly Asked Accessibility Questions

Accessibility is a broad topic, and we can’t assume that everyone knows what constitutes an “accessible” interface. Often, when I get pushback from a colleague or client, it’s because they simply do not have the same context that I do. That’s why I like to keep a handful of answers to commonly asked questions in my back pocket. It’s amazing how answering the “basics” leads to productive discussions filled with substance rather than ones grounded in opinion.

What Do We Mean By “Web Accessibility”?

When we say “web accessibility,” we’re generally talking about making online content available and usable for anyone with a disability, whether it’s a permanent impairment or a temporary one. It’s the practice of removing friction that excludes people from gaining access to content or from completing a task. That usually involves complying with a set of guidelines that are designed to remove those barriers.

Who Creates Accessibility Guidelines?

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are created by a working group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) called the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The W3C develops guidelines and principles to help designers, developers, and authors like us create web experiences based on a common set of standards, including those for HTML, CSS, internationalization, privacy, security, and yes, accessibility, among many, many other areas. The WAI working group maintains the accessibility standards we call WCAG.

Who Needs Web Accessibility?

Twenty-seven percent of the U.S. population has a disability, emphasizing the widespread need for accessible web design. WCAG primarily focuses on three groups:

1. Cognitive or learning disabilities,
2. Visual impairments,
3. Motor skills.

When we make web experiences that solve these issues based on established guidelines, we’re not only doing good for those who are directly impacted by impairment but those who may be impaired in less direct ways as well, such as establishing large target sizes for those tapping a touchscreen phone with their hands full, or using proper color contrast for those navigating a screen in bright sunlight. Everyone needs — and benefits from — accessibility!

Further Reading

• Disability Impacts All of Us (Center for Disease Control and Prevention)
• Inclusive persona extension (Kaz Tsuchiya)
• Situational Disabilities: Why Web Accessibility Impacts Everyone (Bureau of Internet Accessibility)

How Is Web Accessibility Regulated?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is regulated by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Even though there is a lot of bureaucracy in that last sentence, it’s reassuring to know the U.S. government not only believes in web accessibility but enforces it as well.

Non-compliance can result in legal action, with first-time ADA violations leading to fines of up to $75,000, increasing to $150,000 for subsequent violations. The number of lawsuits for alleged ADA breaches has surged in recent years, with more than 4,500 lawsuits filed in 2023 against sites that fail to comply with WCAG AA 2.1 alone — roughly 500 more lawsuits than 2022!

Further Reading

• Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.gov)
• Five years of ADA web and app lawsuits — key observations and trends (UsableNet)
• ADA Website Compliance Lawsuit Tracker (UsableNet)
• National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation (Southeast ADA Center)

How Is Web Accessibility Evaluated?

Web accessibility is something we can test against. Many tools have been created to audit sites on the spot based on WCAG success criteria that specify accessible requirements. That would be a standards-based evaluation using WCAG as a reference point for auditing compliance.

WebAIM has an excellent page that compares different types of accessibility testing, reporting, and tooling. They are also quick to note that automated testing, while convenient, is not a comprehensive way to audit accessibility. Automated tools that scan websites may be able to pick up instances where mistakes in the HTML might contribute to accessibility issues and where color contrasts are insufficient. But they cannot replace or perfectly imitate a real-life person. Testing in real browsers with real people continues to be the most effective way to truly evaluate accessible web experiences.

This isn’t to say automated tools should not be part of an accessibility testing suite. In fact, they often highlight areas you may have overlooked. Even false positives are good in the sense that they force you to pause and look more closely at something. Some of the most widely used automated tools include the following:

• WAVE (free)
• WebAIM Contrast Checker (free)
• axe (paid)
• Polypane (paid)

These are just a few of the most frequent tools I use in my own testing, but there are many more, and the WAI maintains an extensive list of available tools that are worth considering. But again, remember that automated testing is not a one-to-one replacement for testing with real users.

Checklists can be handy for ensuring you are covering your bases:

• WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 AA Checklist (Raghavendra Satish Peri)
• How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference) (W3C)
• WCAG 2.2 Checklist with Filter and Links on CodePen (Web Overhauls)

Accessibility Benefits

When discussing accessibility, I find the most effective arguments are ones that are framed around the interests of clients and stakeholders. That way, the discussion stays within scope and helps everyone see that proper accessibility practices actually benefit business goals. Speaking in business terms is something I openly embrace because it typically supports my case.

The following are a few ways I would like to explain the positive impacts that accessibility has on business goals.

Case Studies

Sometimes, the most convincing approach is to offer examples of companies that have committed to accessible practices and come out better for it. And there are plenty of examples! I like to use case studies and reports in a similar industry or market for a more apples-to-apples comparison that stakeholders can identify with.

That said, there are great general cases involving widely respected companies and brands, including This American Life and Tesco, that demonstrate benefits such as increased organic search traffic, enhanced user engagement, and reduced site load times. For a comprehensive guide on framing these benefits, I refer to the W3C’s resource on building the business case for accessibility.

What To Say To Your Client

Let me share how focusing on accessibility can directly benefit your business. For instance, in 2005, Legal & General revamped their website with accessibility in mind and saw a substantial increase in organic search traffic exceeding 50%. This isn’t just about compliance; it’s about reaching a wider audience more effectively. By making your site more accessible, we can improve user engagement and potentially decrease load times, enhancing the overall user experience. This approach not only broadens your reach to include users with disabilities but also boosts your site’s performance in search rankings. In short, prioritizing accessibility aligns with your goal to increase online visibility and customer engagement.

Further Reading

• The Business Case for Digital Accessibility (W3C)
• Barclays Bank Case Study (W3C)
• 6 companies that boosted business with accessibility (Scope)
• Great Customer Service is Accessible: Help Scout’s Audit Journey with Deque (Deque)
• How Microsoft Unlocked Inclusivity To Drive Growth And Innovation (Forbes)
• This American Life: A Case Study on How Transcription Boosts Podcast SEO and Engagement (3Play Media)
• When it comes to accessibility, Apple continues to lead in awareness and innovation (TechCrunch)

The Curb-Cut Effect

The “curb-cut effect” refers to how features originally designed for accessibility end up benefiting a broader audience. This concept helps move the conversation away from limiting accessibility as an issue that only affects the minority.

Features like voice control, auto-complete, and auto-captions — initially created to enhance accessibility — have become widely used and appreciated by all users. This effect also includes situational impairments, like using a phone in bright sunlight or with one hand, expanding the scope of who benefits from accessible design. Big companies have found that investing in accessibility can spur innovation.

What To Say To Your Client

Let’s consider the ‘curb-cut effect’ in the context of your website. Originally, curb cuts were designed for wheelchair users, but they ended up being useful for everyone, from parents with strollers to travelers with suitcases. Similarly, many digital accessibility features we implement can enhance the experience for all your users, not just those with disabilities. For example, features like voice control and auto-complete were developed for accessibility but are now widely used by everyone. This isn’t just about inclusivity; it’s about creating a more versatile and user-friendly website. By incorporating these accessible features, we’re not only catering to a specific group but also improving the overall user experience, which can lead to increased engagement and satisfaction across your entire customer base.

Further Reading

• Google’s Latest Accessibility Feature Is So Good, Everyone Will Use It (Fast Company)
• How Designing for the Disabled is Giving Google an Edge (Fast Company)
• Make Space For All: Digital Accessibility Benefits Everyone (Forbes)
• 4 Digital Accessibility Features That Benefit Everyone (Bureau of Internet Accessibility)

SEO Benefits

I would like to highlight the SEO benefits that come with accessible best practices. Things like nicely structured sitemaps, a proper heading outline, image alt text, and unique link labels not only improve accessibility for humans but for search engines as well, giving search crawlers clear context about what is on the page. Stakeholders and clients care a lot about this stuff, and if they are able to come around on accessibility, then they’re effectively getting a two-for-one deal.

What To Say To Your Client

Focusing on accessibility can boost your website’s SEO. Accessible features, like clear link names and organized sitemaps, align closely with what search engines prioritize. Google even includes accessibility in its Lighthouse reporting. This means that by making your site more accessible, we’re also making it more visible and attractive to search engines. Moreover, accessible websites tend to have cleaner, more structured code. This not only improves website stability and loading times but also enhances how search engines understand and rank your content. Essentially, by improving accessibility, we’re also optimizing your site for better search engine performance, which can lead to increased traffic and higher search rankings.

Further Reading

• The Impact of Website Accessibility on SEO (ADA Site Compliance)
• Web Accessibility and SEO (WebAIM)
• The ROI of Accessibility in SEO (Moz)
• Accessibility and SEO: Where they overlap and how to optimize for both (Search Engine Watch)

Better Brand Alignment

Incorporating accessibility into web design can significantly elevate how users perceive a brand’s image. The ease of use that comes with accessibility not only reflects a brand’s commitment to inclusivity and social responsibility but also differentiates it in competitive markets. By prioritizing accessibility, brands can convey a personality that is thoughtful and inclusive, appealing to a broader, more diverse customer base.

What To Say To Your Client

Implementing web accessibility is more than just a compliance measure; it’s a powerful way to enhance your brand image. In the competitive landscape of e-commerce, having an accessible website sets your brand apart. It shows your commitment to inclusivity, reaching out to every potential customer, regardless of their abilities. This not only resonates with a diverse audience but also positions your brand as socially responsible and empathetic. In today’s market, where consumers increasingly value corporate responsibility, this can be a significant differentiator for your brand, helping to build a loyal customer base and enhance your overall brand reputation.

Further Reading

• How accessibility strengthens your brand (Accessibility.com)
• Why Digital Accessibility Should Be Part of Your Brand (ADA Site Compliance)
• How to Make Your Branding Accessible (Tailor Brands)

Cost Efficiency

I mentioned earlier how developing accessibility enhances SEO like a two-for-one package. However, there are additional cost savings that come with implementing accessibility during the initial stages of web development rather than retrofitting it later. A proactive approach to accessibility saves on the potential high costs of auditing and redesigning an existing site and helps avoid expensive legal repercussions associated with non-compliance.

What To Say To Your Client

Retrofitting a website for accessibility can be quite expensive. Consider the costs of conducting an accessibility audit, followed by potentially extensive (and expensive) redesign and redevelopment work to rectify issues. These costs can significantly exceed the investment required to build accessibility into the website from the start. Additionally, by making your site accessible now, we can avoid the legal risks and potential fines associated with ADA non-compliance. Investing in accessibility early on is a cost-effective strategy that pays off in the long run, both financially and in terms of brand reputation. Besides, with the SEO benefits that we get from implementing accessibility, we’re saving lots of money and work that would otherwise be sunk into redevelopment.

Further Reading

• Making the Case for Accessibility (Susanna Zaraysky)
• 5 Steps to Creating an Accessibility Strategy (Frank Spillers)
• Digital Accessibility is an Investment, not a Cost (Bureau of Internet Accessibility)

Addressing Client Concerns

Still getting pushback? There are certain arguments I hear time and again, and I have started keeping a collection of responses to them. In some cases, I have left placeholder instructions for tailoring the responses to your project.

“Our users don’t need it.”

Statistically, 27% of the U.S. population does have some form of disability that affects their web use. [Insert research on your client’s target audience, if applicable.] Besides permanent impairments, we should also take into account situational ones. For example, imagine one of your potential clients trying to access your site on a sunny golf course, struggling to see the screen due to glare, or someone in a noisy subway unable to hear audio content. Accessibility features like high contrast modes or captions can greatly enhance their experience. By incorporating accessibility, we’re not only catering to users with disabilities but also ensuring a seamless experience for anyone in less-than-ideal conditions. This approach ensures that no potential client is left out, aligning with the goal to reach and engage a wider audience.

“Our competitors aren’t doing it.”

It’s interesting that your competitors haven’t yet embraced accessibility, but this actually presents a unique opportunity for your brand. Proactively pursuing accessibility not only protects you from the same legal exposure your competitors face but also positions your brand as a leader in customer experience. By prioritizing accessibility when others are not, you’re differentiating your brand as more inclusive and user-friendly. This both appeals to a broader audience and showcases your brand’s commitment to social responsibility and innovation.

“We’ll do it later because it’s too expensive.”

I understand concerns about timing and costs. However, it’s important to note that integrating accessibility from the start is far more cost-effective than retrofitting it later. If accessibility is considered after development is complete, you will face additional expenses for auditing accessibility, followed by potentially extensive work involving a redesign and redevelopment. This process can be significantly more expensive than building in accessibility from the beginning. Furthermore, delaying accessibility can expose your business to legal risks. With the increasing number of lawsuits for non-compliance with accessibility standards, the cost of legal repercussions could far exceed the expense of implementing accessibility now. The financially prudent move is to work on accessibility now.

“We’ve never had complaints.”

It’s great to hear that you haven’t received complaints, but it’s important to consider that users who struggle to access your site might simply choose not to return rather than take the extra step to complain about it. This means you could potentially be missing out on a significant market segment. Additionally, when accessibility issues do lead to complaints, they can sometimes escalate into legal cases. Proactively addressing accessibility can help you tap into a wider audience and mitigate the risk of future lawsuits.

“It will affect the aesthetics of the site.”

Accessibility and visual appeal can coexist beautifully. I can show you examples of websites that are both compliant and visually stunning, demonstrating that accessibility can enhance rather than detract from a site’s design. Additionally, when we consider specific design features from an accessibility standpoint, we often find they actually improve the site’s overall usability and SEO, making the site more intuitive and user-friendly for everyone. Our goal is to blend aesthetics with functionality, creating an inclusive yet visually appealing online presence.

Handling Common Client Requests

This section looks at frequent scenarios I’ve encountered in web projects where accessibility considerations come into play. Each situation requires carefully balancing the client’s needs/wants with accessibility standards. I’ll leave placeholder comments in the examples so you are able to address things that are specific to your project.

The Client Directly Requests An Inaccessible Feature

When clients request features they’ve seen online — like unfocusable carousels and complex auto-playing animations — it’s crucial to discuss them in terms that address accessibility concerns. In these situations, I acknowledge the appealing aspects of their inspirations but also highlight their accessibility limitations.

That’s a really neat feature, and I like it! That said, I think it’s important to consider how users interact with it. [Insert specific issues that you note, like carousels without pause buttons or complex animations.] My recommendation is to take the elements that work well &mdahs; [insert specific observation] — and adapt them into something more accessible, such as [Insert suggestion]. This way, we maintain the aesthetic appeal while ensuring the website is accessible and enjoyable for every visitor.

The Client Provides Inaccessible Content

This is where we deal with things like non-descriptive page titles, link names, form labels, and color contrasts for a better “reading” experience.

Page Titles

Sometimes, clients want page titles to be drastically different than the link in the navigation bar. Usually, this is because they want a more detailed page title while keeping navigation links succinct.

I understand the need for descriptive and engaging page titles, but it’s also essential to maintain consistency with the navigation bar for accessibility. Here’s our recommendation to balance both needs:

• Keyword Consistency: You can certainly have a longer page title to provide more context, but it should include the same key terms as the navigation link. This ensures that users, especially those using screen readers to announce content, can easily understand when they have correctly navigated between pages.
• Succinct Titles With Descriptive Subtitles: Another approach is to keep the page title succinct, mirroring the navigation link, and then add a descriptive tagline or subtitle on the page itself. This way, the page maintains clear navigational consistency while providing detailed context in the subtitle. These approaches aim to align the user’s navigation experience with their expectations, ensuring clarity and accessibility.

Links

A common issue with web content provided by clients is the use of non-descriptive calls to action with phrases and link labels, like “Read More” or “Click Here.” Generic terms can be confusing for users, particularly for those using screen readers, as they don’t provide context about what the link leads to or the nature of the content on the other end.

I’ve noticed some of the link labels say things like “Read More” or “Click Here” in the design. I would consider revising them because they could be more descriptive, especially for those relying on screen readers who have to put up with hearing the label announced time and again. We recommend labels that clearly indicate where the link leads. [Provide a specific example.] This approach makes links more informative and helps all users alike by telling them in advance what to expect when clicking a certain link. It enhances the overall user experience by providing clarity and context.

Forms

Proper form labels are a critical aspect of accessible web design. Labels should clearly indicate the purpose of each input field, whether it’s required, and the expected format of the information. This clarity is essential for all users, especially for those using screen readers or other assistive technologies. Plus, there are accessible approaches to pairing labels and inputs that developers ought to be familiar with.

It’s important that each form field is clearly labeled to inform users about the type of data expected. Additionally, indicating which fields are required and providing format guidelines can greatly enhance the user experience. [Provide a specific example from the client’s content, e.g., we can use ‘Phone (10 digits, no separators)’ for a phone number field to clearly indicate the format.] These labels not only aid in navigation and comprehension for all users but also ensure that the forms are accessible to those using assistive technologies. Well-labeled forms improve overall user engagement and reduce the likelihood of errors or confusion.

Brand Palette

Clients will occasionally approach me with color palettes that produce too low of contrast when paired together. This happens when, for instance, on a website with a white background, a client wants to use their brand accent color for buttons, but that color simply blends into the background color, making it difficult to read. The solution is usually creating a slightly adjusted tint or shade that’s used specifically for digital interfaces — UI colors, if you will. Atul Varma’s “Accessible Color Palette Builder” is a great starting point, as is this UX Lift lander with alternatives.

We recommend expanding the brand palette with color values that work more effectively in web designs. By adjusting the tint or shade just a bit, we can achieve a higher level of contrast between colors when they are used together. Colors render differently depending on the device and screen they are on, and even though we might be using colors consistent with brand identity, those colors will still display differently to users. By adding colors that are specifically designed for web use, we can enhance the experience for our users while staying true to the brand’s essence.

Suggesting An Accessible Feature To Clients

Proactively suggesting features like sitemaps, pause buttons, and focus indicators is crucial. I’ll provide tips on how to effectively introduce these features to clients, emphasizing their importance and benefit.

Sitemap

Sitemaps play a crucial role in both accessibility and SEO, but clients sometimes hesitate to include them due to concerns about their visual appeal. The challenge is to demonstrate the value of site maps without compromising the site’s overall aesthetic.

I understand your concerns about the visual appeal of sitemaps. However, it’s important to consider their significant role in both accessibility and SEO. For users with screen readers, a sitemap greatly simplifies site navigation. From an SEO perspective, it acts like a directory, helping search engines effectively index all your pages, making your site more discoverable and user-friendly. To address the aesthetic aspect, let’s look at how major companies like Apple and Microsoft incorporate sitemaps. Their designs are minimal yet consistent with the site’s overall look and feel. [If applicable, show how a competitor is using sitemaps.] By incorporating a well-designed sitemap, we can improve user experience and search visibility without sacrificing the visual quality of your website.

Accessible Carousels

Carousels are contentious design features. While some designers are against them and have legitimate reasons for it, I believe that with the right approach, they can be made accessible and effective. There are plenty of resources that provide guidance on creating accessible carousels.

When a client requests a home page carousel in a new site design, it’s worth considering alternative solutions that can avoid the common pitfalls of carousels, such as low click-through rates, increased load times, content being pushed below the fold, and potentially annoying auto-advancing features.

I see the appeal of using a carousel on your homepage, but there are a few considerations to keep in mind. Carousels often have low engagement rates and can slow down the site. They also tend to move key content below the fold, which might not be ideal for user engagement. An auto-advancing carousel can also be distracting for users. Instead, we could explore alternative design solutions that effectively convey your message without these drawbacks. [Insert recommendation, e.g., For instance, we could use a hero image or video with a strong call-to-action or a grid layout that showcases multiple important segments at once.] These alternatives can be more user-friendly and accessible while still achieving the visual and functional goals of a carousel.

If we decide to use a carousel, I make a point of discussing the necessary accessibility features with the client right from the start. Many clients aren’t aware that elements like pause buttons are crucial for making auto-advancing carousels accessible. To illustrate this, I’ll show them examples of accessible carousel designs that incorporate these features effectively.

Further Reading

• Usability Guidelines For Better Carousels UX (Vitaly Friedman)
• A Step-By-Step Guide To Building Accessible Carousels (Sonja Weckenmann)

Pause Buttons

Any animation that starts automatically, lasts more than five seconds, and is presented in parallel with other content, needs a pause button per WCAG Success Criterion 2.2.2. A common scenario is when clients want a full-screen video on their homepage without a pause button. It’s important to explain the necessity of pause buttons for meeting accessibility standards and ensuring user comfort without compromising the website’s aesthetics.

I understand your desire for a dynamic, engaging homepage with a full-screen video. However, it’s essential for accessibility purposes that any auto-playing animation that is longer than five seconds includes a pause button. This is not just about compliance; it’s about ensuring that all visitors, including those with disabilities, can comfortably use your site.

The good news is that pause buttons can be designed to be sleek and non-intrusive, complementing your site’s aesthetics rather than detracting from them. Think of it like the sound toggle buttons on videos. They’re there when you need them, but they don’t distract from the viewing experience. I can show you some examples of beautifully integrated pause buttons that maintain the immersive feel of the video while ensuring accessibility standards are met.

Conclusion

That’s it! This is my complete toolkit for discussing web accessibility with colleagues and clients at the start of new projects. It’s not always easy to make a case, which is why I try to appeal from different angles, using a multitude of resources and research to support my case. But with practice, care, and true partnership, it’s possible to not only influence the project but also make accessibility a first-class feature in the process.

Please use the resources, strategies, and talking points I have provided. I share them to help you make your case to your own colleagues and clients. Together, incrementally, we can take steps toward a more accessible web that is inclusive to all people.

And when in doubt, remember the core principles we covered:

• Show your expertise: Adapt accessibility discussions to fit the client’s understanding, offering basic or in-depth explanations based on their familiarity.
• Align with client goals: Connect accessibility with client-specific benefits, such as SEO and brand enhancement.
• Define accessibility in project scope: Include accessibility as an integral part of the design process and explain how it is evaluated.
• Be prepared with Resources: Keep a collection of relevant resources, including success stories and the consequences of non-compliance.
• Utilize User Research: Use targeted user research to inform design choices, demonstrating accessibility’s broad impact.
• Manage Incremental Changes: Suggest iterative changes for large projects to address accessibility in manageable steps.

(yk)

In his seminal piece “The Market For Lemons”, renowned web crank Alex Russell lays out the myriad failings of our industry, focusing on the disastrous consequences for end users. This indignation is entirely appropriate according to the bylaws of our medium.

Frameworks factor highly in that equation, yet there can also be good reasons for front-end developers to choose a framework, or library for that matter: Dynamically updating web interfaces can be tricky in non-obvious ways. Let’s investigate by starting from the beginning and going back to the first principles.

Markup Categories

Everything on the web starts with markup, i.e. HTML. Markup structures can roughly be divided into three categories:

1. Static parts that always remain the same.
2. Variable parts that are defined once upon instantiation.
3. Variable parts that are updated dynamically at runtime.

For example, an article’s header might look like this:

<header>
  <h1>«Hello World»</h1>
  <small>«123» backlinks</small>
</header>

Variable parts are wrapped in «guillemets» here: “Hello World” is the respective title, which only changes between articles. The backlinks counter, however, might be continuously updated via client-side scripting; we’re ready to go viral in the blogosphere. Everything else remains identical across all our articles.

The article you’re reading now subsequently focuses on the third category: Content that needs to be updated at runtime.

Color Browser

Imagine we’re building a simple color browser: A little widget to explore a pre-defined set of named colors, presented as a list that pairs a color swatch with the corresponding color value. Users should be able to search colors names and toggle between hexadecimal color codes and Red, Blue, and Green (RGB) triplets. We can create an inert skeleton with just a little bit of HTML and CSS:

Client-Side Rendering

We’ve grudgingly decided to employ client-side rendering for the interactive version. For our purposes here, it doesn’t matter whether this widget constitutes a complete application or merely a self-contained island embedded within an otherwise static or server-generated HTML document.

Given our predilection for vanilla JavaScript (cf. first principles and all), we start with the browser’s built-in DOM APIs:

function renderPalette(colors) {
  let items = [];
  for(let color of colors) {
    let item = document.createElement("li");
    items.push(item);

    let value = color.hex;
    makeElement("input", {
      parent: item,
      type: "color",
      value
    });
    makeElement("span", {
      parent: item,
      text: color.name
    });
    makeElement("code", {
      parent: item,
      text: value
    });
  }

  let list = document.createElement("ul");
  list.append(...items);
  return list;
}

Note:
The above relies on a small utility function for more concise element creation:

function makeElement(tag, { parent, children, text, ...attribs }) {
  let el = document.createElement(tag);

  if(text) {
    el.textContent = text;
  }

  for(let [name, value] of Object.entries(attribs)) {
    el.setAttribute(name, value);
  }

  if(children) {
    el.append(...children);
  }

  parent?.appendChild(el);
  return el;
}

You might also have noticed a stylistic inconsistency: Within the items loop, newly created elements attach themselves to their container. Later on, we flip responsibilities, as the list container ingests child elements instead.

Voilà: renderPalette generates our list of colors. Let’s add a form for interactivity:

function renderControls() {
  return makeElement("form", {
    method: "dialog",
    children: [
      createField("search", "Search"),
      createField("checkbox", "RGB")
    ]
  });
}

The createField utility function encapsulates DOM structures required for input fields; it’s a little reusable markup component:

function createField(type, caption) {
  let children = [
    makeElement("span", { text: caption }),
    makeElement("input", { type })
  ];
  return makeElement("label", {
    children: type === "checkbox" ? children.reverse() : children
  });
}

Now, we just need to combine those pieces. Let’s wrap them in a custom element:

import { COLORS } from "./colors.js"; // an array of `{ name, hex, rgb }` objects

customElements.define("color-browser", class ColorBrowser extends HTMLElement {
  colors = [...COLORS]; // local copy

  connectedCallback() {
    this.append(
      renderControls(),
      renderPalette(this.colors)
    );
  }
});

Henceforth, a <color-browser> element anywhere in our HTML will generate the entire user interface right there. (I like to think of it as a macro expanding in place.) This implementation is somewhat declarative¹, with DOM structures being created by composing a variety of straightforward markup generators, clearly delineated components, if you will.

¹ The most useful explanation of the differences between declarative and imperative programming I’ve come across focuses on readers. Unfortunately, that particular source escapes me, so I’m paraphrasing here: Declarative code portrays the what while imperative code describes the how. One consequence is that imperative code requires cognitive effort to sequentially step through the code’s instructions and build up a mental model of the respective result.

Interactivity

At this point, we’re merely recreating our inert skeleton; there’s no actual interactivity yet. Event handlers to the rescue:

class ColorBrowser extends HTMLElement {
  colors = [...COLORS];
  query = null;
  rgb = false;

  connectedCallback() {
    this.append(renderControls(), renderPalette(this.colors));
    this.addEventListener("input", this);
    this.addEventListener("change", this);
  }

  handleEvent(ev) {
    let el = ev.target;
    switch(ev.type) {
    case "change":
      if(el.type === "checkbox") {
        this.rgb = el.checked;
      }
      break;
    case "input":
      if(el.type === "search") {
        this.query = el.value.toLowerCase();
      }
      break;
    }
  }
}

Note:
handleEvent means we don’t have to worry about function binding. It also comes with various advantages. Other patterns are available.

Whenever a field changes, we update the corresponding instance variable (sometimes called one-way data binding). Alas, changing this internal state² is not reflected anywhere in the UI so far.

² In your browser’s developer console, check document.querySelector("color-browser").query after entering a search term.

Note that this event handler is tightly coupled to renderControls internals because it expects a checkbox and search field, respectively. Thus, any corresponding changes to renderControls — perhaps switching to radio buttons for color representations — now need to take into account this other piece of code: action at a distance! Expanding this component’s contract to include
field names could alleviate those concerns.

We’re now faced with a choice between:

1. Reaching into our previously created DOM to modify it, or
2. Recreating it while incorporating a new state.

Rerendering

Since we’ve already defined our markup composition in one place, let’s start with the second option. We’ll simply rerun our markup generators, feeding them the current state.

class ColorBrowser extends HTMLElement {
  // [previous details omitted]

  connectedCallback() {
    this.#render();
    this.addEventListener("input", this);
    this.addEventListener("change", this);
  }

  handleEvent(ev) {
    // [previous details omitted]
    this.#render();
  }

  #render() {
    this.replaceChildren();
    this.append(renderControls(), renderPalette(this.colors));
  }
}

We’ve moved all rendering logic into a dedicated method³, which we invoke not just once on startup but whenever the state changes.

³ You might want to avoid private properties, especially if others might conceivably build upon your implementation.

Next, we can turn colors into a getter to only return entries matching the corresponding state, i.e. the user’s search query:

class ColorBrowser extends HTMLElement {
  query = null;
  rgb = false;

  // [previous details omitted]

  get colors() {
    let { query } = this;
    if(!query) {
      return [...COLORS];
    }

    return COLORS.filter(color => color.name.toLowerCase().includes(query));
  }
}

Note:
I’m partial to the bouncer pattern.
Toggling color representations is left as an exercise for the reader. You might pass this.rgb into renderPalette and then populate <code> with either color.hex or color.rgb, perhaps employing this utility:

function formatRGB(value) {
  return value.split(",").
    map(num => num.toString().padStart(3, " ")).
    join(", ");
}

This now produces interesting (annoying, really) behavior:

Entering a query seems impossible as the input field loses focus after a change takes place, leaving the input field empty. However, entering an uncommon character (e.g. “v”) makes it clear that something is happening: The list of colors does indeed change.

The reason is that our current do-it-yourself (DIY) approach is quite crude: #render erases and recreates the DOM wholesale with each change. Discarding existing DOM nodes also resets the corresponding state, including form fields’ value, focus, and scroll position. That’s no good!

Incremental Rendering

The previous section’s data-driven UI seemed like a nice idea: Markup structures are defined once and re-rendered at will, based on a data model cleanly representing the current state. Yet our component’s explicit state is clearly insufficient; we need to reconcile it with the browser’s implicit state while re-rendering.

Sure, we might attempt to make that implicit state explicit and incorporate it into our data model, like including a field’s value or checked properties. But that still leaves many things unaccounted for, including focus management, scroll position, and myriad details we probably haven’t even thought of (frequently, that means accessibility features). Before long, we’re effectively recreating the browser!

We might instead try to identify which parts of the UI need updating and leave the rest of the DOM untouched. Unfortunately, that’s far from trivial, which is where libraries like React came into play more than a decade ago: On the surface, they provided a more declarative way to define DOM structures⁴ (while also encouraging componentized composition, establishing a single source of truth for each individual UI pattern). Under the hood, such libraries introduced mechanisms⁵ to provide granular, incremental DOM updates instead of recreating DOM trees from scratch — both to avoid state conflicts and to improve performance⁶.

⁴ In this context, that essentially means writing something that looks like HTML, which, depending on your belief system, is either essential or revolting. The state of HTML templating was somewhat dire back then and remains subpar in some environments.
⁵ Nolan Lawson’s “Let’s learn how modern JavaScript frameworks work by building one” provides plenty of valuable insights on that topic. For even more details, lit-html’s developer documentation is worth studying.
⁶ We’ve since learned that some of those mechanisms are actually ruinously expensive.

The bottom line: If we want to encapsulate markup definitions and then derive our UI from a variable data model, we kinda have to rely on a third-party library for reconciliation.

Actus Imperatus

At the other end of the spectrum, we might opt for surgical modifications. If we know what to target, our application code can reach into the DOM and modify only those parts that need updating.

Regrettably, though, that approach typically leads to calamitously tight coupling, with interrelated logic being spread all over the application while targeted routines inevitably violate components’ encapsulation. Things become even more complicated when we consider increasingly complex UI permutations (think edge cases, error reporting, and so on). Those are the very issues that the aforementioned libraries had hoped to eradicate.

In our color browser’s case, that would mean finding and hiding color entries that do not match the query, not to mention replacing the list with a substitute message if no matching entries remain. We’d also have to swap color representations in place. You can probably imagine how the resulting code would end up dissolving any separation of concerns, messing with elements that originally belonged exclusively to renderPalette.

class ColorBrowser extends HTMLElement {
  // [previous details omitted]

  handleEvent(ev) {
    // [previous details omitted]

    for(let item of this.#list.children) {
      item.hidden = !item.textContent.toLowerCase().includes(this.query);
    }
    if(this.#list.children.filter(el => !el.hidden).length === 0) {
      // inject substitute message
    }
  }

  #render() {
    // [previous details omitted]

    this.#list = renderPalette(this.colors);
  }
}

As a once wise man once said: That’s too much knowledge!

Things get even more perilous with form fields: Not only might we have to update a field’s specific state, but we would also need to know where to inject error messages. While reaching into renderPalette was bad enough, here we would have to pierce several layers: createField is a generic utility used by renderControls, which in turn is invoked by our top-level ColorBrowser.

If things get hairy even in this minimal example, imagine having a more complex application with even more layers and indirections. Keeping on top of all those interconnections becomes all but impossible. Such systems commonly devolve into a big ball of mud where nobody dares change anything for fear of inadvertently breaking stuff.

Conclusion

There appears to be a glaring omission in standardized browser APIs. Our preference for dependency-free vanilla JavaScript solutions is thwarted by the need to non-destructively update existing DOM structures. That’s assuming we value a declarative approach with inviolable encapsulation, otherwise known as “Modern Software Engineering: The Good Parts.”

As it currently stands, my personal opinion is that a small library like lit-html or Preact is often warranted, particularly when employed with replaceability in mind: A standardized API might still happen! Either way, adequate libraries have a light footprint and don’t typically present much of an encumbrance to end users, especially when combined with progressive enhancement.

I don’t wanna leave you hanging, though, so I’ve tricked our vanilla JavaScript implementation to mostly do what we expect it to:

(yk)

Front-end development seemed simpler in the early 2000s, didn’t it? The standard website consisted mostly of static pages made of HTML and CSS seasoned with a pinch of JavaScript and jQuery. I mean, who doesn’t miss the cross-browser compatibility days, right?

Fast forward to today, and it looks like a parallel universe is taking place with an overwhelming number of choices. Which framework should you use for a new project? Perhaps more established ones like React, Angular, Vue, Svelte, or maybe the hot new one that came out last month? Each framework comes with its unique ecosystem. You also need to decide whether to use TypeScript over vanilla JavaScript and choose how to approach server-side rendering (or static site generation) with meta-frameworks like Next, Nuxt, or Gatsby. And we can’t forget about unit and end-to-end testing if you want a bug-free web app. And we’ve barely scratched the surface of the front-end ecosystem!

But has it really gotten more complex to build websites? A lot of the frameworks and tooling we reach for today were originally crafted for massive projects. As a newcomer, it can be frightening to have so many to consider, almost creating a fear of missing out that we see exploited to sell courses and tutorials on the new hot framework that you “cannot work without.”

All this gives the impression that web development has gotten perhaps too complex. But maybe that is just an exaggeration? In this article, I want to explore those claims and find out if web development really is that complex and, most importantly, how we can prevent it from getting even more difficult than we already perceive it to be.

How It Was Before

As someone who got into web development after 2010, I can’t testify to my own experience about how web development was from the late 1990s through the 2000s. However, even fifteen years ago, learning front-end development was infinitely simpler, at least to me. You could get a website started with static HTML pages, minimal CSS for styling, and a sprinkle of JavaScript (and perhaps a touch of jQuery) to add interactive features, from toggled sidebars to image carousels and other patterns. Not much else was expected from your average developer beyond that — everything else was considered “going the extra mile.” Of course, the awesome native CSS and JavaScript features we have today weren’t around back then, but they were also unnecessary for what was considered best practice in past years.

Large and dynamic web apps certainly existed back then — YouTube and Facebook, to name a couple — but they were developed by massive companies. No one was expected to re-create that sort of project on their own or even a small team. That would’ve been the exception rather than the norm.

I remember back then, tend to worry more about things like SEO and page optimization than how my IDE was configured, but only to the point of adding meta tags and keywords because best practices didn’t include minifying all your assets, three shaking your code, caching your site on edge CDNs, or rendering your content on the server (a problem created by modern frameworks along hydration). Other factors like accessibility, user experience, and responsive layouts were also largely overlooked in comparison to today’s standards. Now, they are deeply analyzed and used to boost Lighthouse scores and impress search engine algorithms.

The web and everything around it changed as more capabilities were added and more and more people grew to depend on it. We have created new solutions, new tools, new workflows, new features, and whatever else new that is needed to cater to a bigger web with even bigger needs.

The web has always had its problems in the past that were worthy of fixing: I absolutely don’t miss tables and float layouts, along with messy DOM manipulation. This post isn’t meant to throw shade on new advances while waxing nostalgic about the good days of the “old wild web.” At the same time, though, yesterday’s problems seem infinitely simpler than those we face today.

JavaScript Frameworks

JavaScript frameworks, like Angular and React, were created by Google and Facebook, respectively, to be used in their own projects and satisfy the needs that only huge web-based companies like them have. Therein lies the main problem with web complexity: JavaScript frameworks were originally created to sustain giant projects rather than smaller ones. Many developers vastly underestimate the amount of time it takes to build a codebase that is reliable and maintainable with a JavaScript framework. However, the alternative of using vanilla JavaScript was worse, and jQuery was short for the task. Vanilla JavaScript was also unable to evolve quickly enough to match our development needs, which changed from simple informative websites to dynamic apps. So, many of us have quickly adopted frameworks to avoid directly mingling with JavaScript and its messy DOM manipulation.

Back-end development is a completely different topic, subject to its own complexities. I only want to focus on front-end development because that is the discipline that has perhaps overstepped its boundaries the most by bleeding into traditional back-end concerns.

Stacks Getting Bigger

It was only logical for JavaScript frameworks to grow in size over time. The web is a big place, and no one framework can cover everything. But they try, and the complexity, in turn, increases. A framework’s size seems to have a one-to-one correlation with its complexity.

But the core framework is just one piece of a web app. Several other technologies make up what’s known as a tech “stack,” and with the web gaining more users and frameworks catering to their needs, tech stacks are getting bigger and bigger. You may have seen popular stacks such as MEAN (MongoDB, Express, Angular, and Node) or its React (MERN) and Vue (MEVN) variants. These stacks are marketed as mature, test-proofed foundations suitable for any front-end project. That means the advertised size of a core framework is grossly underestimated because they rely on other micro-frameworks to ensure highly reliable architectures, as you can see in stackshare.io. Besides, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all stack; the best tool has always depended — and will continue to depend — on the needs and goals of your particular project.

This means that each new project likely requires a unique architecture to fulfill its requirements. Giant tech companies need colossal architectures across all their projects, and their stacks are highly engineered accordingly to secure scalability and maintenance. They also have massive customer bases, so maintaining a large codebase will be easier with more revenue, more engineers, and a clearer picture of the problem. To minimize waste, the tech stacks of smaller companies and projects can and should be minimized not only to match the scale of their needs but to the abilities of the developers on the team as well.

The idea that web development is getting too complex comes from buying into the belief that we all have the same needs and resources as giant enterprises.

“

Trying to imitate their mega stacks is pointless. Some might argue that it’s a sacrifice we have to make for future scalability and maintenance, but we should focus first on building great sites for the user without worrying about features users might need in the future. If what we are building is worth pursuing, it will reach the point where we need those giant architectures in good time. Cross that bridge when we get there. Otherwise, it’s not unlike wearing Shaquille O’Neal-sized sneakers in hopes of growing into them. They might not even last until then if it happens at all!

We must remember that the end-user experience is the focus at the end of the day, and users neither care about nor know what stack we use in our apps. What they care about is a good-looking, useful website where they can accomplish what they came for, not the technology we use to achieve it. This is how I’ve come to believe that web development is not getting more complex. It’s developers like us who are perpetuating it by buying into solutions for problems that do not need to be solved at a certain scale.

Let me be really clear: I am not saying that today’s web development is all bad. Indeed, we’ve realized a lot of great features, and many of them are thanks to JavaScript frameworks that have pushed for certain features. jQuery had that same influence on JavaScript for many, many years.

We can still create minimum viable products today with minimal resources. No, those might not make people smash the Like button on your social posts, but they meet the requirements, nothing more and nothing less. We want bigger! Faster! Cheaper! But we can’t have all three.

If anything, front-end development has gotten way easier thanks to modern features that solve age-old development issues, like the way CSS Flexbox and Grid have trivialized layouts that used to require complex hacks involving floats and tables. It’s the same deal with JavaScript gaining new ways to build interactions that used to take clever workarounds or obtuse code, such as having the Intersection Observer API to trivialize things like lazy loading (although HTML has gained its own features in that area, too).

We live in this tension between the ease of new platform features and the complexity of our stacks.

“

Do We Need A JavaScript Framework For Everything?

Each project, regardless of its simplicity, desperately needs a JavaScript framework. A project without a complex framework is like serving caviar on a paper plate.

At least, that’s what everyone seems to think. But is that actually true? I’d argue on the contrary. JavaScript frameworks are best used on bigger applications. If you’re working on a smaller project, a component-based framework will only complicate matters, making you split your website into a component hierarchy that amounts to overkill for small projects.

The idea of needing a framework for everything has been massively oversold. Maybe not directly, but you unconsciously get that feeling whenever a framework’s name pops in, as Edge engineer Alex Russell eloquently expresses in his article, “The Market For Lemons”:

“These technologies were initially pitched on the back of “better user experiences” but have utterly failed to deliver on that promise outside of the high-management-maturity organisations in which they were born. Transplanted into the wider web, these new stacks have proven to be expensive duds.”

— Alex Russell

Remember, the purpose of a framework is to simplify your life and save time. If the project you’re working on is smaller, the time you supposedly save is likely overshadowed by the time you spend either setting up the framework or making it work with the rest of the project. A framework can help make bigger web apps more interactive and dynamic, but there are times when a framework is a heavy-handed solution that actually breeds inefficient workflows and introduces technical debt.

Step back and think about this: Are HTML, CSS, and a touch of JavaScript enough to build your website or web application? If so, then stick with those. What I am afraid of is adding complexity for complexity’s sake and inadvertently raising the barrier to entry for those coming into web development. We can still accomplish so much with HTML and CSS alone, thanks again to many advances in the last decade. But we give the impression that they are unsuitable for today’s web consumption and need to be enhanced.

Knowing Everything And Nothing At The Same Time

The perceived standard that teams must adopt framework-centered architectures puts a burden not only on the project itself but on a developer’s well-being, too. As mentioned earlier, most teams are unable to afford those architectures and only have a few developers to maintain them. If we undermine what can be achieved with HTML and CSS alone and set the expectations that any project — regardless of size — needs to have a bleeding edge stack, then the weight to meet those expectations falls on the developer’s shoulders, with the great responsibility of being proficient in all areas, from the server and database to front end, to design, to accessibility, to performance, to testing, and it doesn’t stop. It’s what has been driving “The Great Divide” in front-end development, which Chris Coyier explains like this:

“The divide is between people who self-identify as a (or have the job title of) front-end developer yet have divergent skill sets. On one side, an army of developers whose interests, responsibilities, and skillsets are heavily revolved around JavaScript. On the other, an army of developers whose interests, responsibilities, and skillsets are focused on other areas of the front end, like HTML, CSS, design, interaction, patterns, accessibility, and so on.”

— Chris Coyier

Under these expectations, developers who focus more on HTML, CSS, design, and accessibility rather than the latest technology will feel less valued in an industry that appears to praise those who are concerned with the stack. What exactly are we saying when we start dividing responsibilities in terms of “full-stack development” or absurd terms like “10x development”? A while back, Brad Frost began distinguishing these divisions as “front-of-the-front-end” and “back-of-the-front-end”.

Mandy Michael explains what impact the chase for “full-stack” has had on developers trying to keep up:

“The worst part about pushing the “know everything” mentality is that we end up creating an industry full of professionals suffering from burnout and mental illness. We have people speaking at conferences about well-being, imposter syndrome, and full-stack anxiety, yet despite that, we perpetuate this idea that people have to know everything and be amazing at it.”

— Mandy Michael

This isn’t the only symptom of adopting heavy-handed solutions for what “vanilla” HTML, CSS, and JavaScript already handle nicely. As the expectations for what we can do as front-end developers grow, the learning curve of front-end development grows as well. Again, we can’t learn and know everything in this vast discipline. But we tell ourselves we have to, and thanks to this mentality, it’s unfortunately common to witness developers who may be extremely proficient with a particular framework but actually know and understand little of the web platform itself, like HTML semantics and structure.

The fact that many budding developers tend to jump straight into frameworks at the expense of understanding the basics of HTML and CSS isn’t a new worry, as Rachel Andrew discussed back in 2019:

“That’s the real entry point here, and yes, in 2019, they are going to have to move on quickly to the tools and techniques that will make them employable, if that is their aim. However, those tools output HTML and CSS in the end. It is the bedrock of everything that we do, which makes the devaluing of those with real deep skills in those areas so much more baffling.”

— Rachel Andrew

And I want to clarify yet again that modern Javascript frameworks and libraries aren’t inherently bad; they just aren’t designed to replace the web platform and its standards. But we keep pushing them like we want them to!

The Consequences Of Vendor Lock-In

“Vendor lock-in” happens when we depend too deeply on proprietary products and services to the extent that switching to other products and services becomes a nearly impossible task. This often occurs when cloud services from a particular company are deeply integrated into a project. It’s an issue, especially in cloud computing, since moving databases once they are set up is expensive and lengthy.

Vendor lock-in in web development has traditionally been restricted to the back end, like with cloud services such as AWS or Firebase; the front-end framework, meanwhile, was a completely separate concern. That said, I have noticed a recent trend where vendor lock-in is reaching into meta-frameworks, too. With the companies behind certain meta-frameworks offering hosting services for their own products, swapping hosts is increasingly harder to do (whether the lock-in is designed intentionally or not). Of course, companies and developers will be more likely to choose the hosting service of the company that made a particular framework used on their projects — they’re the experts! — but that only increases the project’s dependency on those vendors and their services.

A clear example is the relationship between Next and Vercel, the parent cloud service for Next. With the launch of Next 13, it has become increasingly harder to set up a Next project outside of Vercel, leading to projects like Open Next, which says right on its website that “[w]hile Vercel is great, it’s not a good option if all your infrastructure is on AWS. Hosting it in your AWS account makes it easy to integrate with your backend [sic]. And it’s a lot cheaper than Vercel.” Fortunately, the developers’ concerns have been heard, and Next 14 brings clarity on how to self-host Next on a Node server.

Another example is Gatsby and Gatsby Cloud. Gatsby has always offered helpful guides and alternative hosting recommendations, but since the launch of Gatsby Cloud in 2019, the main framework has been optimized so that using Gatsby and Gatsby Cloud together requires no additional hosting configurations. That’s fantastic if you adopt both, but it’s not so great if all you need is one or the other because integrating the framework with other hosts — and vice versa — is simply harder. It’s as if you are penalized for exercising choice.

And let’s not forget that no team expected Netlify to acquire Gatsby Cloud in February 2023. This is a prime case where the vendor lock-in problem hits everybody because converting from one site to another comes at a cost. Some teams were charged 120% more after converting from Gatsby Cloud to Netlify — even with the same plan they had with Gatsby Cloud!

What’s the solution? The common answer I hear is to stop using paid cloud services in favor of open-sourced alternatives. While that’s great and indeed a viable option for some projects, it fails to consider that an open-source project may not meet the requirements needed for a given app.

And even then, open-source software depends on the community of developers that maintain and update the codebase with little to no remuneration in exchange. Further, open source is equally prone to locking you into certain solutions that are designed to solve a deficiency with the software.

There are frameworks and libraries, of course, that are in no danger of being abandoned. React is a great example because it has an actively engaged community behind it. But you can’t have the same assurance with each new dependency you add to a project. We can’t simply keep installing more packages and components each time we spot a weak spot in the dependency chain, especially when a project is perfectly suited for a less complex architecture that properly leverages the web platform.

Choosing technology for your stack is an exercise of picking your own poison. Either choose a paid service and be subject to vendor lock-in in the future, or choose an open-source one and pray that the community continues to maintain it.

“

Those are virtually the only two choices. Many of the teams I know or have worked on depend on third-party services because they cannot afford to develop them on their own; that’s a luxury that only massive companies can afford. It’s a problem we have to undergo when starting a new project, but one we can minimize by reducing the number of dependencies and choosing wisely when we have to.

Each Solution Introduces A New Problem

Why exactly have modern development stacks gotten so large and complex? We can point a finger at the “Development Paradox.” With each new framework or library, a new problem crops up, and time-starved developers spend months developing a new tool to solve that problem. And when there isn’t a problem, don’t worry — we will create one eventually. This is a feedback loop that creates amazing solutions and technologies but can lead to over-engineered websites if we don’t reign it in.

This reminds me of the famous quote:

“The plain fact is that if you don’t have a problem, you create one. If you don’t have a problem, you don’t feel that you are living.”

— U.G. Krishnamurti

Let’s look specifically at React. It was originally created by Facebook for Facebook to develop more dynamic features for users while improving Facebook’s developer experience.

Since React was open-sourced in 2013 (and nearly re-licensed in 2017, if it weren’t for the WordPress community), hundreds of new utilities have been created to address various React-specific problems. How do you start a React project? There’s Create React App and Vite. Do you need to enhance your state management? There is Redux, among other options. Need help creating forms? There is a React Hook Form. And perhaps the most important question: Do you need server-side rendering? There’s Next, Remix, or Gatsby for that. Each solution comes with its own caveats, and developers will create their own solutions for them.

It may be unfair to pick on React since it considers itself a library, not a framework. It’s inevitably prone to be extended by the community. Meanwhile, Angular and Vue are frameworks with their own community ecosystems. And this is the tip of the iceberg since there are many JavaScript frameworks in the wild, each with its own distinct ideology and dependencies.

Again, I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. I love that new technologies emerge and find it liberating to have so many options. But when building something as straightforward as a webpage or small website — which some have started referring to as “multi-page applications” — we have to draw a line that defines how many new technologies we use and how reliable they are. We’re quite literally mashing together third-party code written by various third-party developers. What could go wrong? Please don’t answer that.

Remember that our users don’t care what’s in our stacks. They only see the final product, so we can save ourselves from working on unnecessary architectures that aren’t appreciated outside of development circles. It may seem counterintuitive in the face of advancing technology, but knowing that the user doesn’t care about what goes behind the scenes and only sees the final product will significantly enhance our developer experience and free you from locked dependencies. Why fix something that isn’t broken?

How Can We Simplify Our Codebases?

We’ve covered several reasons why web development appears to be more complex today than in years past, but blaming developers for releasing new utilities isn’t an accurate portrayal of the real problem. After all, when developing a site, it’s not like we are forced to use each new technology that enters the market. In fact, many of us are often unaware of a particular library and only learn about it when developing a new feature. For example, if we want to add toast notifications to our web app, we will look for a library like react-toastify rather than some other way of building them because it “goes with” that specific library. It’s worth asking whether the app needs toast notifications at all if they introduce new dependencies.

Imagine you are developing an app that allows users to discover, review, and rate restaurants in their area. The app needs, at a bare minimum, information about each restaurant, a search tool to query them, and an account registration flow with authentication to securely access the account. It’s easy to make assumptions about what a future user might need in addition to these critical features. In many cases, a project ends up delayed because we add unnecessary features like SSR, notifications, offline mode, and fancy animations — sometimes before the app has even converted its first registered user!

I believe we can boil down the complexity problem to personal wishes and perceived needs rather than properly scoping a project based on user needs and experiences.

That level of scope creep can easily turn into an over-engineered product that will likely never see the light of launching.

What can we do to simplify our own projects? The following advice is relevant when you have control over your project, either because it’s a personal one, it’s a smaller one for a smaller team, or you have control over the decisions in whatever size organization you happen to be in.

The hardest and most important step is having a sense of detection when your codebase is getting unnecessarily complicated. I deem it the hardest step because there is no certainty of what the requirements are or what the user needs; we can only make assumptions. Some are obvious, like assuming the user will need a way to log into the app. Others might be unclear, like whether the app should have private messaging between users. Others are still far-fetched, like believing users need extremely low latency in an e-commerce page. Other features are in the “nice to have” territory.

That is regarding the user experience, but the same questions emerge on the development side:

• Should we be using a CSS preprocessor or a CSS framework, or can we achieve it using only CSS modules?
• Is vanilla JavaScript enough, or are we going to add TypeScript?
• Does the app need SSR, SSG, or a hybrid of the two?
• Should we implement Redis on the back end for faster database queries, or is that too much scope for the work?
• Should we be implementing end-to-end testing or unit tests?

These are valid questions that should be considered when developing a site, but they can distract us from our main focus: getting things done.

“Done is better than perfect.”

— Sheryl Sandberg

And, hey, even the largest and most sophisticated apps began as minimal offerings that iterated along the way.

We also ought to be asking ourselves what would happen if a particular feature or dependency isn’t added to the project. If the answer is “nothing,” then we should be shifting our attention to something else.

Another question worth asking: “Why are we choosing to add [X]?” Is it because that’s what is popular at the moment, or because it solves a problem affecting a core feature? Another aspect to take into consideration is how familiar we are with certain technologies and give preference to those we know and can start using them right away rather than having to stop and learn the ins and outs of a new framework.

Choose the right tool for the job, which is going to be the one that meets the requirements and fits your mental model. Focus less on a library’s popularity and scalability but rather on getting your app to the point where it needs to scale in the first place.

Conclusion

It’s incredibly difficult to not over-engineer web apps given current one-size-fits-all and fear-of-missing-out mentalities. But we can be more conscious of our project goals and exercise vigilance in guarding our work against scope creep. The same can be applied to the stack we use, making choices based on what is really needed rather than focusing purely on what everyone else is using for their particular work.

After reading the word “framework” exactly 48 times in this article, can we now say the web is getting too complex? It has been complex by nature since its origins, but complexity doesn’t translate to “over-engineered” web apps. The web isn’t intrinsically over-engineered, and we only have ourselves to blame for over-engineering our projects with overly-wrought solutions for perceived needs.

(gg, yk)