> Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication
Isn't that what HTML gives us?
Isn't that what HTML gives us?
If HTML were truly semantic, browsers could implement accessibility features around it, but because they're so vague, there's no real way for browsers to do that, which offloads the responsibility onto web developers, who in most cases aren't granted budget to do it. There are a handful of features such as alt properties, but these are pretty limited.
So yeah, HTML should give us that, but that's part of what users gave up when we decided it was acceptable to allow random websites to run code on our machines and tell us how our content should be displayed.
All the HTML5 input types are also an example of semantics impriving. It could be way better, but it's not a total stalemate
How does this differ from how <div> was being used before?
I've switched to using <section> simply because it's a better name, but I'm not sure it's made any meaningful difference in my code.
Another example of the pointlessness of this issue is <em> and <strong>. I've rarely seen code where these weren't used exactly the same as <i> and <b> were before. In rare cases, I've seen someone do something like make <em> a different color rather than italic, and that's almost always been a bad idea, because when HTML authors use <em> they almost always intend for it to be italic. In fact, I'd say we should just continue using <i> and <b> because those communicate intent better, but at this point I've worked in too many codebases that decided that <i> could be hacked to mean "icon" (i.e. using FontAwesome) which is a horrible, awful, no-good, bad, hack.
> All the HTML5 input types are also an example of semantics impriving. It could be way better, but it's not a total stalemate
That's true, but I think we'd be moving forward a lot more quickly if we weren't devoting most of standards development resources toward giving companies more fine-grained control of our browsers through CSS/JS.
There was never a golden era like you describe (it was a time of conflicting philosophies, people saying "eh, let's add this, that would be sweet", and browser vendors competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other and the limited specs), semantic HTML helps in some cases but is never going to give you automatic accessibility, and a one size fits all browser style is still not going to give you what you need even as you add increasingly unsemantic tags to try to improve it (which is exactly what was happening pre-CSS).
I've been writing web code since 1997ish, so...
> There was never a golden era like you describe (it was a time of conflicting philosophies, people saying "eh, let's add this, that would be sweet", and browser vendors competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other and the limited specs)
I did not describe a golden era of HTML, because a golden era of HTML never happened. Instead, it was precluded by the introduction of JS/CSS. Had JS and CSS never been invented, we might have achieved a golden era of HTML, but we would have needed web standards to mature before that could happen. What happened was, web standards did mature, but they matured to serve websites rather than users. As a result, mature web standards center around JS and CSS, leaving HTML anemic and weak.
What we have now is a time of conflicting philosophies, with websites competing to add as much as possible to out "innovate" each other. Users still suffer the same inconsistent interfaces they did in 1997, it's just that instead of browsers being inconsistent, it's websites that are inconsistent.
Hell, the entire reason the internet moved from Holy Grail layouts to singular sidebar and vertically integrated layouts was because CSS can't into Holy Grail.
With how wide most users' monitors are ever since 16:9 became commonplace, Holy Grail should be the ideal content presentation layout because it uses all that free space on the sides for non-content (eg: navigation) so precious vertical real estate can be dedicated to content.
HCI dictates how humans use interfaces and with that comes many defacto reasons why a plain text page does not solve the problems users want to solve. Do you not think websites test into the optimal performing layouts and content distribution? If it worked better, we'd all be using it (it doesn't).
No, I think most website devs left to their devices optimize for least effort to create and maintain.
...which is definitely not tables. Flexbox is much easier.
I'd say HTML for itself just gives us a way to give meaning or imply how something should be styled "headline of first order". In the end it's a markup language, not some magic styling tool.
How it is actually styled (in absence of CSS) is in the hands of the default rendering of your browser. That might very well be a very bad rendering, due to lack of knowledge/time/engagement of the people building/maintaining that renderer.
Also those renderes might come from a time and system where technical limitations where different, markup was different, lots of things were very different.
So I don't think we should expect HTML alone to "look nice" or work well in regards of readability.
I think we would win a lot if browsers default styles were beautiful (as in: really good, not merely fancy) designed. Many websites then would need just a few lines to set some colors, style that weird-custom thing they do or make it feel just a bit more personal.