I hope this question is on-topic for StackOverflow. I have seen many comments here that a lot of web developers scrollbar customizations are non-standard and not yet approved by the powers that be (W3C.org). My philosophy is to design to the standards Issued for Use by the Industry Organization that guides web standards and specifications because a properly, dependable, working website is what my users want.
Approved scrollbar customization standards that the W3C.org has approved. Where can I get that standard?
If I am off subject again, could you possibly get me some answers first, then pass me to the Red Queen for off with the head?
Thanks Community.
The "standard" Scrollbars CSS Module - Level 1 is in its early stages of adoption and that would be the only one matching your requirements.
Until it's implemented, you're limited to non-standard CSS scrollbar styling support.
Another option (the only production ready one, really) is to use a plugin which basically replaces the scrollbar mechanism with custom HTML elements.
Most of them have trouble with at least one mobile device type (either on IoS or on Android) and the sane solution is to detect it and simply disable the plugin for that case.
Note 1: while W3C support is a very wise thing to look for when choosing how to build your page, it doesn't mean much without browser support. In theory, if Chrome refuses to implement something today, considering their market share is above 60%, they simply won't and nobody can do anything about it. But your clients will require their page to work in Chrome.
However, much of Chrome's popularity comes from strictly sticking to web standards so far, so it would be safe to assume they will continue to abide by them.
Note 2: I recommend this article. It's well written, quite informative and up to date on the current state of scrollbar customizations.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
Which syntax and features should I use if I wanted to write a webpage that could be correctly parsed by any device realistically still in use?
By currently in use I mean also devices whose usage is not statistically meaningful to be included on browser usage statistics, but still reasonable enough to be used in the real world without being too much of a stretch: e.g. A screen reader, a Point-Of-Sale/Kiosk Device, an Internet appliance like a smart TV or a console.
I've recently been assigned to develop an HTML landing page requiring support for - hear me out - the ancient Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. Yes, you read that right.
Long story short, it was in the requirements for a public administration project that was in a legal limbo for a long time, and reworking these requirements would be more problematic than developing it and be done with it. At least according to my boss. Besides, it shouldn't be that much different than writing a current-day HTML newsletter.
But it got me thinking - what's the oldest browser (as in, the one with the oldest HTML standard support available) that I could realistically find in the wild?
I'm not talking about relevance or caniuse-level-of-support numbers, just something that for some more-or-less realistic reasons (excluding "here's a Windows 3.1 VM getting to the internet" retro challenges) people would still be using to get online. Also some security requirements (mostly updated SSL/TLS) cut off quite a bit of older devices, mostly games consoles like the Dreamcast, PS2 w/Network Access Disk and the PSP, or the original Nintendo DS, so those are also excluded.
Other than the aforementioned IE6.0, I can think of Opera Mini browser (which version?) for some legacy mobile phones, or maybe some kind of internet appliance still using the Netfront runtime (IIRC The Playstation 3 still uses a pre-webkit version of it).
Any suggestion?
preword - apologies this became a bit of a rant, I will try and tidy it up later and focus it more. I also understand you may have to listen to your boss so this has become me ranting on your behalf to your boss. I hope you can use some of it to construct a strong argument with your boss to get the spec changed. It also doesn't answer the question as it is titled. Probably worth a few down votes but I enjoyed having a rant!
Given the comment the OP asked this answer is applicable to that.
What are the oldest browser standards I need to support for accessibility?
The WebAIM annual survey is a great place to get this information.
Under the section 'Browsers' we can see that 2.1% of respondents still use IE 6,7 or 8.
Unfortunately they do not indicate what split of those who use IE6 but I would imagine it would be less than 0.1% overall as very few sites still operate on IE6 correctly.
I personally develop to IE9 standards, so use ES5 for JavaScript (or compile to ES5), HTML 5.0 features and CSS3 non-experimental features.
The reason for this is that those who do use IE8 and below tend to be screen reader users due to compatibility with the software they own. They also tend to use a very specific set of websites due to the fact that most websites just will not work for them.
Many people would argue that you must include everyone, and in an ideal world you should. However you also have to consider that your goal in accessibility is to provide the best experience possible for the widest number of people. This is not possible using IE8 and below as you lose a lot of the HTML5 standards that are useful for accessibility (particular form related attributes, navigating by regions such as <main>, <nav> etc.).
So what about the people stuck on IE6-8 then?
As stated they tend to be screen reader users. The beauty of this is that as long as you develop valid HTML, user correct WAI-ARIA attributes etc. (basically go for AAA WCAG 2.1 rating or as close as possible, at least AA rating) then in IE6-8 the site will still function reasonably well and be usable, even if not perfect.
CSS is where your main struggle will be, making a site work in IE6 is just horrible if you still want to follow best practices (try styling a button for example to make the font size large enough and colour contrast AAA rated). Also how do you then make it responsive for mobile users without hundreds of hacks?
So what if you have to support older browsers.
You can provide a separate version of the site (shock, horror, gasp).
Use user agent sniffing to redirect people to a separate, stripped back, text only with minimal styling version of the site. Be sure to include a link to the main site and indicate that this is a version of the site designed for older browsers.
This requires careful planning as you have to ensure that the same information is maintained on both sites and that features introduced are replicated across both sites.
This is why nobody does this and isn't something I would recommend at all. The amount of things to consider, the limitations on features you can introduce and the chance of updating one version and not the other (even with a Content Management System) is very high. Making just one of those mistakes is likely to cause you more problems than not implementing this at all.
Conclusion
HTML5 introduces many great features for accessibility.
Regions for navigation are one of the biggest wins.
By designing to older standards you will likely end up with a site that is less accessible.
For example, a lot of WAI-ARIA attributes don't work in modern browsers, never mind in older browsers. Trying to fall back to using WAI-ARIA attributes is not going to work.
What about an accessible and easy to use layout? IE6 was the days of tables for layouts because CSS was so limited with positioning. (want a sticky navigation bar? Good luck implementing that!)
To provide 'best effort' I would use a HTML5 shim to at least fix the layout for things like IE7 and IE8, IE6 just isn't feasible.
Another argument is security. How on earth are you meant to write secure JavaScript that is IE6 compatible. Heck try finding a single piece of information alive on the internet today on 'how do i fix this problem in IE6'. Perhaps your solution here is to just not use JavaScript at all. (and yes someone will argue progressive enhancement allows you to use JavaScript, but then you have JavaScript errors which would then mean you fail WCAG under 'Robust').
Oh and did you know that you can't even use <style>*{position:relative}</style><table><input></table> as that will crash the browser?
As a final thought on this rant part, Windows 98 will run IE9 and NVDA. So we cannot make the argument that people may not have the financial resources to upgrade as NVDA is free. We could argue they do not have the technical knowledge on how to upgrade, at which point all I could say is write an article on the site on how to upgrade and redirect people there maybe? It gets a bit silly at that point as to where you draw the line.
How to win the argument with your boss / help them get the spec changed
Your boss is in a bad position but probably doesn't have the 'firepower' they need to persuade the spec to be changed easily.
Here is a simple way for them to win the argument:
WCAG 2.1 AA is the minimum legal standard that we can build this site to without risking getting sued.
This is impossible while maintaining compatibility with IE6 and without compromising on accessibility features.
The cost of getting accessibility wrong, coupled with the additional development cost associated with trying to develop to such an old standard makes this infeasible.
Couple that with the likelihood of developing a application with massive security flaws that could make the site vulnerable I would highly recommend we change the minimum requirements to IE8.
tl;dr
The oldest browser you realistically need to worry about is Internet Explorer 9. Even then you are being generous with your compatibility requirements. Do not try and develop a site that works in every browser ever encountered since 2001 (yes IE6 was 2001), you will break things for more people trying to accommodate people who do not want to upgrade (Windows 98 will run IE9 and NVDA).
Do not attempt to support IE8 and below as you will actually end up making decisions that will negatively impact accessibility.
If you can create a HTML5 valid and CSS3 valid website that is WCAG 2.1 AA standards compliant then you are already more accessible than 99% of websites in the world.
You're not asking the right question.
Users of what I build may be different than the users of what you build. To one audience, it may not matter if the site only loads on current browsers. To another audience, it may be the only thing that matters.
Additionally, some sites outright require newer browser features to function... no web-based fallbacks are available. Also, there are current browsers that don't support much of anything (i.e. Safari, Lynx, etc.) so it's not necessarily a matter of age... but capability.
The question you should be asking is, how do you make the decision of what to support and what not to support. Short of pointing you at your analytics and logs, this isn't a technical question, but a business question.
I want to make a desktop app with electronjs. For this I want to use custom elements. (not Polymer)
But here on MDN is a note that the spec will be rewritten:
Spec for Custom Elements will be rewritten in early 2016. All current
implementation are experimental and the upcoming standard will not be
compatible with these. Web sites using Custom Elements are likely to
be broken in the near future.
Are there any updates in this? What will change? Are there new specs available? Where can I find more information on this?
The Custom Elements W3C Editor's Draft specification is available on GitHub. It was last updated on June 1, 2016 (as of this writing) though you can expect it to continue to be updated. To answer your first question, yes, there are updates and you can see them directly at the spec. Which also answers your third and fourth questions.
Because it is a draft, you cannot expect any browser to support it yet (though some claim to). Polyfills are your best bet if you want to use it now, knowing that since you are using bleeding edge technology you will need to stay on top of browser implementations and constantly review what works.
Because it lives on GitHub, you can file bugs against the spec if you want a say in how it progresses (it is not tech support, however). Looking at open issues essentially answers your second question.
As for browser support, Can I Use is tracking where it stands today including who does and doesn't have it on their roadmap. Note that browsers who claim to support it are supporting an incomplete spec that will change. That same page also has a link to lots of handy resources to help get you up to speed.
Due to the low level of support for HTML5 in older browsers should one (or could one) use any part of HTML5 at this point in time for a new website that will have varying users with the full spectrum of browsers (and versions) to access the site?
EDIT: To fill in some more info here. The website in question, for simplistic comparison, would resemble fb. I am not talking a social website just one that will reach that type of vast audience (anyone can join) and will be an interactive portal (not just a site full static content being displayed).
First, HTML5 is a standard that includes the previous standards. Therefore, you are already doing HTML5 without knowing it.
Second, HTML5 could be compared to CSS in terms of feature grouping (CSS = CSS1 + CSS2 + CSS3 and so on). In other words, it is a collection of individual features and not one big thing.
Third, you will have to implement new HTML5 features one day or another. Why wait? Ooh right some people do not care about "modern browsers". You have a responsibility as a Web developer/designer to inform people about the consequences of obsolete browsers.
Last but not least, there is tons of information already... Like this website: http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/.
Some complementary info can be found from this answer and this other answer I wrote for other questions about HTML5.
Have fun! :)
Thank god MS is finally campaigning to get gid of IE6 but it surely will be in China for years to come due to pirated windows software which I had altogether too much experience with; despite this push for higher standards tons still use IE7, 8, and some even 9 is not perfect. Chrome IMOP is exceptional followed by Safari and FF for HTML5 support but even these browsers are not perfect.
I think it is ok to use features css3 and HTML5 such as canvas but in an unobtrusive manner like javascript enhances UI HTML5/CSS3/jQuery should enhance not be the content.
With javascript we can check for browsers and use appropriate methods this concept should also be applied to HTML5. So if you do implement anything I think it's important to understand how to detect and this is probably the best resource to start with.
http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/detect.html
You can use all of the new HTML Field types in forms safely, any HTML 5 inputs in browsers which don't support html 5 will simply fall-back to a standard type="text" inputs.
Mobiles currently seem to benefit from HTML 5 forms most at the moment as they recognise the input type, lets say "email" and then provide an email specific keyboard layout to the user.
Its also simple to provide JavaScript fall backs for some html 5 elements with http://www.modernizr.com/
One of the projects I am currently working on has customer requirements for IE7 and 508 compliance. This customer currently uses JAWS version 9 and is making requests which I am told are impossible without a newer version of JAWS which supports WAI-ARIA. For example:
Accessible, 508 compliant Ajax Loading Indicator
Accessible, 508 compliant Ajax Pagination
Before I come back and tell them that they need to upgrade to a newer version of JAWS (from Freedom Scientific's website, WAI-ARIA is supported starting with version 10), I would like to be armed with as much information as possible to make a convincing argument. First of all, is IE7 capable of conveying ARIA information to JAWS (I've seen claims of ARIA support starting with IE8, but nothing explicitly stating it doesn't work with IE7)? If so, is it only to a limited extent? Supposing the answer to this question is yes and the degree of support is sufficient, are there big differences in support between JAWS versions 10, 11, and 12 which I should know about? Perhaps this will is a good bar to meet: given the requirement for IE7, what is the minimum version of JAWS required to apply ARIA in order to solve the two questions linked above.
I know there are a lot of questions jammed in here, but I believe they worked together as a single question: please give me an overview of the varying degrees of support for WAI-ARIA between IE7 and different versions of JAWS; and to what extent can these solve the customer requests linked above.
Thanks! And even if you can't address all of the elements of this question, I would be grateful for any information you can share.
You seem to be equating 508 compliance with support for WAI-ARIA? AFAIK 508 doesn't dictate the use of ARIA.
While ARIA has been designed to overcome the many difficulties of making dynamic web apps accessible, some old hacks that it's designed to replace still more or less work. Also because it is a relatively new technology there is limited support in anything but the latest browsers/Assistive tech.
To have an AJAX progress indicator and pagination accessible with-out ARIA is not straightforward but usually you can get it working one way or another by forcing Focus to the updated parts of the page and using hidden (off-left) text to give screen reader users some verbal directions or hints. The trick being this has to be done is such a way that JAWS will go back and reload it's DOM rather that it's cached version of the page. JAWS 9 is better at this than previous versions.
If you google around you should be able to find various ways to do this.
My adice to you is hire an Accessibility Consultant for a couple of sessions otherwise you are going to be stumbling around in the dark, they'll also be able help you talk to your client and suggest Design changes if it is all looking too complicated to be done in an accessible way.
"First of all, is IE7 capable of
conveying ARIA information to JAWS"..
etc
Browsers don't send ARIA information directly to JAWS, they notify the accessibility layer of Operating System which just interpret the messages as standard operating system accessibility messages. The Assistive technology (JAWS or whatever) are just (hopefully) listening for these system messages.
I can’t speak to Chris Bentley’s suggestion of using off screen text to provide hints to screen readers. While I assume this would work I’ve never seen it done on a website. I’ve also never dealt with internal apps designed to be 508 compliant and have next to no web development experience. I second Chris’ suggestion of hiring a consultant who has experience in this area. I don’t know what the differences are between Jaws versions and WAI-ARIA support. I know Jaws 10 does at least offer some WAI-ARIA support under Internet Explorer 7. I just went to http://news.yahoo.com with Jaws 10 and was able to use the ; key to move from landmark to landmark. You can run multiple versions of Jaws without a problem on the same machine, I currently have Jaws 10, 11, and 12 installed. This should allow you to test different versions of Jaws if you can't find documentation that spells out the differences.
WAI-ARIA support is available starting in IE8 and Firefox 2+. Concerning screenreaders, use NVDA instead of JAWS. It's free and works great with Firefox. In fact, the Mozilla foundation has granted funding to NVDA to improve the NVDA screen reader. They work great together.
I'm confused by the discussion and advancement both of a new version of HTML and a new version of XHTML. Are they competitors? If so, what is likeliest to be the adopted future of the web? If not, what is the differing non-competing purpose for each?
Are we due to have a BluRay/HDVD battle here? Is there ultimately any clear decision? I fear a future where browsers pick and choose among the easiest and/or flashiest features of each to implement, leaving web developers trying to sort out the lowest common denominator for any new web app.
HTML 5 is meant for web applications whereas XHTML2 is meant for documents. From the HTML 5 working draft:
XHTML2 defines a new HTML vocabulary with better features for hyperlinks, multimedia content, annotating document edits, rich metadata, declarative interactive forms, and describing the semantics of human literary works such as poems and scientific papers.
However, it lacks elements to express the semantics of many of the non-document types of content often seen on the Web. For instance, forum sites, auction sites, search engines, online shops, and the like, do not fit the document metaphor well, and are not covered by XHTML2.
[HTML5] aims to extend HTML so that it is also suitable in these contexts.
XHTML2 and [HTML5] use different namespaces and therefore can both be implemented in the same XML processor.
XHTML2 and HTML5 are competing standards, they both purport to be the next iteration of HTML.
It is pretty clear that HTML5 is going to win, since it has support by the browser vendors.
XHTML2 is effectively dead. Since w3c(HTMLWG) accepted WHATWG's proposal the work has stopped on XHTML2 (even before that, since the last working draft for xhtml2 is from 2006).
In my opinion HTML5 will be the next dominant format. XHTML is just too unforgiving to be used in a web environment (you can't have the page fail on every small error...).
HTML5 is shaping up to be quite the treat for web developers - a formal spec for the CANVAS element, native drag-and-drop API, an offline storage API, server notifications API (push model), a formal content editing API and much more. If they can deliver even half of what they are proposing to, it will be a major advancement for web applications.
From what I was able to find in a quick google search, I would suggest that these are indeed competing standards. Both are attempting to advance web technology but are following different paths to do so.
For a pretty thorough treatment of the matter you might look at these two links:
http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/industry-news/setting-the-standards-html-5-vs-xhtml-2-002032.php
Ultimately it's whatever is supported by browser makers. HTML 5 is feature rich, but the final draft may be years off. There are inherent difficulties in implementing things like audio and video support in 4(+) major rendering engines, and having them all behave the same way. Even validation would be a chore. Most browsers besides IE support the canvas element and SVG, but they still only represent about 25% of the market. With IE still commanding 75-80% of the market share, users who don't use or are oblivious to alternatives will be unable to use more advanced features, giving designers a tough decision.
IE8 is only finally implementing support which other browsers have had for users, meaning that the IE user base will always lag in compatibility. While HTML 5 is a nice idea, I think proprietary solutions such as Flash/AIR and Google Gears will continue to provide standardized support for the rich features HTML 5 provides. The biggest problem really is standardization - you have to design a website with the greatest percentage of users in mind as possible. There is hope, however. A Mozilla developer made a canvas plugin for IE - we could potentially see an open-source IE add-on that brings it up to a certain standard, that users could install much like Flash.
To Microsoft's credit they are being very open with IE8 and Windows 7 development (see their project blogs), so there is the possibility that more proactive IE development will accelerate adoption of HTML 5.
The W3C allowed the xhtml2 working group's charter to expire in 2009. Their resources were rolled into the html5 working group. The html5 spec contains a section entitled The XHTML Syntax.