At Edge Conference on Friday, Peter Gasston unmasked me as a secret accessibility wanker by saying “For a proper in-depth look at a11y in web components, see @brucel – he’s just spent weeks researching it for a talk next week.”
Well, not weeks, but I confess to reading around the subject (A lesson on rendering trees, emerging technologies and tacos), and had some chats with the ever-helpful Addy Osmani and The Mighty Steve Faulkner as well as (gasp) thinking a bit.
(If you plan to attend my talk at Funka conference in Stockholm on April 8, please stop reading now. Or read on, and go to someone else’s talk.)
If you don’t know what Web Components are, I recommend starting with Peter Gasston’s A Detailed Introduction To Custom Elements or his excellent introduction to web components at Edge Conference.
“Real” HTML elements have built-in behaviours. Something like a
<button>, for example, can be focussed; it can be activated by the keyboard, and when it’s activated it does something. Developers don’t need to add anything to the button element to get these behaviours; they’re given to us.
However, some developers love wheel-reinvention (it can make a diverting break from yak-shaving). So we get vile messes like this, that emulate
<button> but which aren’t
<button>. Therefore, to make it accessible, it requires
<DIV id=:rk class="J-K-I J-J5-Ji L3 J-K-I-JO" tabIndex=0 unselectable="on" closure_hashCode_l16mgm="182" act=""> <DIV class="J-J5-Ji J-K-I-Kv-H" unselectable="on"> <DIV class="J-J5-Ji J-K-I-J6-H" unselectable="on"> <DIV class=J-K-I-KC unselectable="on"> <DIV class=J-K-I-K9-KP unselectable="on"> </DIV> <DIV class=J-K-I-Jz unselectable="on">Search Mail</DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
(The example is from Steve Faulkner’s 2010 article HTML5 and the myth of WAI-ARIA redundance. “Tag bukkake” is defined as “nastier than tag soup, and far more in your face”.)
omg-look-at-my-sexy-button element of course, but your basic markup would be
You can also make your own custom elements with no fallback, too. But whichever way you choose, you need to add all the ARIA information and
tabindex yourself. I don’t think this is misuse of ARIA; the ARIA spec says
WAI-ARIA is intended to augment semantics in supporting languages like HTML and SVG… It clarifies semantics to assistive technologies when authors create new types of objects, via style and script, that are not yet directly supported by the language of the page, because the invention of new types of objects is faster than standardized support for them appears in web languages.
Given that the whole point of Web Components is to add “new types of objects, via style and script, that are not yet directly supported by the language of the page”, this seems to me a pretty good fit.
But enough theorising – how well are Web Components supported in assistive technology?
The answer is, pretty well (although Some stuff that doesn’t work between the DOM and Shadow DOM).
That’s actually not too surprising; although Web Components and Shadow DOM can hide things from the “real” DOM of the page (by design), the browser mashes them all together to render them, and assistive technologies sit on top of browsers. Of course, if the developer couldn’t be bothered to add ARIA information etcetera, they may not be accessible – but the fact they’re encapsulated in a component doesn’t make it better or worse than if they’re in the page in the traditional way.
The primary impediment to accessibility on the Web isn’t technical, it’s social. It’s that many (most?) developers don’t give a toss. One aspect of Web Components is that they can be shared and imported into the HTML – think of server-side includes, but client-side.
<head> <link rel="import" href="/path/to/imports/stuff.html"> </head>
(More at HTML Imports #include for the web.)
I had a vision of a big CDN (like Google’s Web Fonts or hosting of jQuery) but Addy Osmani told me that including from third party CDNs could be a performance problem. Nevertheless, we can expect lots of Web Component libraries to spring up, and people saving them locally, using their build processes to check they have the latest versions in their directories for inclusion at run time.
I don’t think it’s necessary for me to urge developers to put the source code of the Web Components they write onto Github for forking and collaboration. Please do that, and make it easy for people to contribute, so that people who notice accessibility holes can send pull requests.
A while ago, on this blog, I got an email from a screenreader user telling me that the live comment preview below the comments box needed an ARIA live region to be accessible. It was a WordPress plugin, with the source code on Github. I sent a pull request and, a couple of days later, the developer merged my one-line change latest version of the plugin. That’s my site, and 43,410 others, made more accessible through one pull request.
Christian Heilmann recently wrote that we need more “passion” in accessibility, “Not another library to add ARIA to badly thought-out HTML“.
I disagree. If passionate evangelism were enough, the web would be perfectly accessible now. My message to accessibility advocates is “passion – great. But with pull requests, please.”
- Web Components and the Three Unsexy Pillars by Paul “it’s not my round” Lewis. “I believe we need some open and community-driven way of vetting and ensuring Web Components are accessible, secure and performant. While we figure out what that means, let’s not be fooled into thinking that Web Components can fix bad development”
- webcomponents.github.io “document[s] web components best practices so that others can follow the same path”
- The golden path announcing “A community upvoting platform that lets us collaborate on best practise in front end code” by Mairead Buchan
- Plans for repo of good web components: “Section for peer-reviewed Custom Elements” by Addy Osmani