Hire a web Developer and Designer to upgrade and boost your online presence with cutting edge Technologies

Monday, March 18, 2024

A Web Designer’s Accessibility Advocacy Toolkit

 

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.

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

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

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:

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:


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 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.
Posted by Honey Vig at 9:19 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Frequently Heard In My Beginning Front-End Web Development Class

 What could we learn from entry-level students in front-end web development? As seasoned professionals, you might think you’ve seen it all, but the truth is that the newcomers are asking the most intriguing questions and making connections that those of us who have spent years on the front end may have never considered.

I felt uninspired for a spell in 2019 and decided to enroll in a beginning-level community college course on web development as a way to “spice” things up, sort of like going backwards in order to move forwards. I had no interest in being an old dog learning new tricks; what I wanted was to look at front-end development through the eyes of a beginner in 2019 after having been a beginner in 2003.

Fast-forward five years, and I’m now teaching that class for the same college, as well as three others. What I gained by reprising my student status is an obsession with “a-ha!” moments. It’s the look in a student’s eyes when something “clicks” and new knowledge is developed. With the barrier to learning web development seemingly getting higher all the time, here I am, making merry with the basics. (That linked post to Rachel’s blog is what spurred me to go back to school.)

With several years of teaching under my belt, I have plenty of opinions about the learning landscape for web development. But what I am more interested in continues to be vicarious living through the eyes of my entry-level students and the consistent sparks of knowledge they make.

Questions are often the precursor to an “a-ha!” moment. And my students ask some pretty darn interesting questions every term, without fail, questions that have forced me to reconsider not only how I approach curriculum and instruction but also how other people think about The Web™ as a whole.

I’ve made a practice of collecting handfuls of student questions and comments. That way, I can reflect on how I might respond or answer them for future students and reference them as I write and update my lesson plans. I thought I’d share a few of them because, I hope, it will give you an idea of what those getting into the field are curious about. I think you’ll find that as many of us debate and decry the value of JavaScript frameworks, Core Web Vitals, AI, and whether Typescript is a necessary evil, the people cracking into web development are asking the most interesting questions in the field and are making way different connections than those of us who have spent forever on the front end.

These are pulled straight from students in the current Spring term. We’re only three weeks into the semester, but check out what sorts of things are already swirling around their minds as we discuss semantics, accessibility, and writing modes.

“I really never thought of this; however, code could be inclusive, and how coding could express empathy. While reading this portion of the context, I was thinking about my Kindle and how the Kindle can have audio, change my font style, larger/smaller font, and lighting. All of this helps me to read and navigate my books better depending on my surroundings and how much accessibility I will need. For example, when I am driving, I love my audiobooks, and at night, I use my dim setting and change font size because it’s the end of the day, and my eyes don’t want to do too much work reading smaller text. It’s really fascinating that coding can do all of this.”
“If we are confused about our coding and it doesn’t make sense to us, it will definitely confuse the readers, which is the opposite of our end goal, accessibility. There are also times when we might want to use <div> where we could use <article> or <nav> or any of the other important elements. It’s essential to fully understand the elements and their uses in order to write the cleanest code.”
“Tackling CSS logical properties this week felt like a juggling act, trying to keep all those new concepts in the air. Swapping left and right for inline-start and inline-end is a bit confusing, but it’s cool to see how it makes websites more welcoming for different languages.”
“What are the legal implications of website liability? I couldn’t imagine the size of a class action lawsuit that Facebook would get smacked with if a rogue developer decided to pin a gif of a strobe light to the top of the world’s newsfeeds. Are websites subject to the same legislation that requires buildings to have wheelchair ramps?”
“Sometimes, I wonder how to make all this new stuff work on old browsers that might not get what I’m trying to do. I also get stuck when my page looks great in one language but breaks in another. What’s the best way to check my work in different languages or writing modes?”
“One of the big things that really got me stoked was learning how to make content in Flexbox the same size using flex or flex-basis. This was a really big thing for me last semester when I was working on my final project. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make the content in Webflow equal in size.”
“Hearing the terms “Writing Modes” and “Logical Properties” in CSS was a bit of a concern at the beginning of this week. A lot of CSS I remember was beginning to come back, but these two were new. After going over the course modules, my concern lifted a lot, mainly because Writing Modes were the layout of text in a certain element. As simple as I thought it was, it was also very important considering how writing modes change in different countries. Learning how these writing modes change the flow of text showed how much more inclusion you could bring to a website, allowing for different languages to be filtered in.”
“Although in the previous course, we learned how flexbox and grid can be used to style interesting content on sites, we didn’t study how they were made with CSS. It was surprisingly simple to grasp the basic concepts of setting up a flexbox or grid and how their children can be positioned on a main axis and cross axis. I especially enjoyed setting up grids, as both methods are intuitive, and the concept of selecting the grid lines that an element sits in reminds me of how some programming languages implement arrays and ranges. Python, for instance, allows the user to select the last element of an array using -1 just as the grid-column: 1/-1; the property can specify that an element spans until the end of a row.”
“Logical Properties were intimidating at first, but it was just changing the code to make it make sense in a way. After learning CSS — a bit a while ago — Logical Properties seemed more modern, and I think I adapted to it quickly.”
“But as a whole, I could see the building of websites to be a very easy thing to automate, especially in this day and age. Perhaps that is why site builders do not get super specific with their semantics — I usually only find <html>, <body>, and <head>, while the rest is filled with <div>. Especially when it comes to companies that push a lot of articles or pages out onto the internet, I can see how they would not care much for being all-inclusive, as it matters more that they get the content out quickly.”
“I did not think I would enjoy coding, but so far, I like this class, and I’m learning so much. I liked getting into CSS a little and making things more customizable. I found it interesting that two elements make your content look the same but have different meanings.”

I want to end things with a few choice quotes from students who completed my course in the last term. I share them not as ego boosters but as a reminder that simplicity is still alive, well, and good on the web. While many new developers feel pressured to earn their “full stack” merit badge, the best way to learn the web — and make people excited about it — is still the simple “a-ha!” moment that happens when someone combines HTML with CSS for the first time in a static file.

“I can confidently say that among all the courses I’ve taken, this is the first one where I thoroughly read all the content and watched all the videos in detail because it is so well-structured. Despite the complexity of the subject, you made this course seem surprisingly easy to grasp.”
“Man, I’ve learned so much in this class this semester, and it’s finally over. This final project has given me more confidence and ability to troubleshoot and achieve my vision.”
“Even though I did not pass, I still truly did enjoy your class. It made me feel smart because coding had felt like an impossible task before.”
“I especially appreciate Geoff’s enthusiasm for multiple reasons. I am hoping to change careers, and the classes are helping me get closer to that reality.”

These are new people entering the field for the first time who are armed with a solid understanding of the basics and a level of curiosity and excitement that easily could clear the height of Mount Elbert.

Isn’t that what we want? What would the web look like if we treat the next wave of web developers like first-class citizens by lowering the barriers to entry and rolling out the red carpet for them to crack into a career in front-end? The web is still a big place, and there is room for everyone to find their own groove. Some things tend to flourish when we democratize them, and many of us experienced that first-hand when we first sat down and wrote HTML for the very first time without the benefit of organized courses, bootcamps, YouTube channels, or frameworks to lean on. The same magic that sparked us is still there to spark others after all this time, even if we fail to see it.

Posted by Honey Vig at 6:37 AM 0 comments

Web Development Is Getting Too Complex, And It May Be Our Fault

 An overwhelming number of frameworks and tooling available today gives the impression that web development has gotten perhaps too complex. 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.” But perhaps that is just an exaggeration? Here it explores those claims and finds 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.

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.

Posted by Honey Vig at 6:33 AM 0 comments
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)