My very similar pet peeve is about websites that use `onclick` handlers and similar to implement navigation. Just use a damn anchor tag, which gets you correct link behavior for free:
* works with middle click for new tab
* integrates with accessibility devices
* works with right click + open in new window or similar options
* etc. etc. etc.
If it's notionally navigation, don't use javascript soup: use a link.
I've seen an increase in people doing this sort of thing over the past few years. I imagine it has something to do with frameworks and ignorance or apathy, but the old fashioned way almost always provides the best UX.
To anyone reading who has tried to get fancy with a substitute for the <a> tag, I wish you mild discomfort and inconvenience.
What's scary is that with proliferation of LLM-assisted code editors and vibe coding, and considering the training material for these models, this is only going to get worse and worse.
Could it be that the devs who write that code are not allowed to touch the CSS so they implement the visual functionality they want in their framework instead of telling the design team their intent?
There could be any number of weird constraints that would lead a developer who knows better to do such a thing in a specific situation, but someone designed (or failed to intentionally design) the system in question.
That person should sit alone in a room with no distractions and think about what they did.
Yup. I think a lot of the devs that started with React jumped straight into the "fun" stuff without learning some of the "boring" fundamentals.
And those devs set the wrong patterns and standards for others following hot behind them. The only time I can remember needing to dress a div up like a button was when an accordion trigger was just a giant button and anything passed in would be rendered inside, but I needed an action to the right of the trigger title. But those happen super rarely. You can't just pass in a button as it was invalid html to have nested buttons obviously. Yes, I know I could probably use css to absolutely position it or something but that takes it out of the flow and starts hacking about it in another way.
oh, 100% yes! The job project i joined somewhat recently is a moderately-complex React web app, and none of the navigation elements are actual links. Everything is done by onClick handling, even thought many things are, conceptually, just links. I have no idea why this kind of thing is so widespread on the web front-end world.
If they link to the image directly, it makes it easier for users to share that link directly. We cannot have that, so instead we get a web page using exabytes of JS to show the image and a bunch of ads.
I wonder why browsers don't intercept JS-triggered navigation (or history.push) events that happen with a click handler on the stack — where it can be determined from the event data of that click handler that the user additionally used the middle mouse button or was holding cmd/ctrl at the time — and rewrite them into navigation-in-new-tab. (Ideally, without making the caller aware that anything different happened than what it was expecting.)
It might not be what the developer of the site/app intended; but it's exactly the semantics the user is expressing their desire to trigger. So why not do what the user wants? Browsers are user agents, not developer agents, after all.
(Before you say "that sounds like a layering violation" — well, yes it is, but that particular layering violation already exists to support most browsers' JS engines' "suppress popup-window / new-tab navigation if the stack of the navigating call doesn't contain a click event" logic. The code ugliness was already bought and paid for; we may as well reap as much benefit from it as we can!)
> it's exactly the semantics the user is expressing their desire to trigger.
That’s not necessarily true. You could imagine writing perhaps a video game or something where this control is intended to have a different meaning. For this reason, I don’t think this is a liberty that browser developers can take.
Vivaldi recently took liberty to "restore" a scrollbar to the body tag of my app even though I had intentionally moved it to an inner div. It royally effed up my app with no workaround.
Their intentions were good, but.. you don't know what devs are going to do. As long as they're following spec, let them. Users can vote with their wallet or eyeballs.
NB: I don't want to throw too much shade at Vivaldi. I reported it. They fixed it. Still my fav browser
Keep in mind that this check+logic would only come into play within the call to `history.push` or the `window.location.href` setter.
It's not "add a browser-default click event listener that shims in special behavior" (which wouldn't be able to catch the JS navigation in the first place, since that would be occurring in its own, separate click event listener.)
It's instead "when I-the-browser have been called by page JS to do something navigation-like through the native `location` or `history` APIs, first check if the current call stack has a event-listener call triggered by a browser-delivered click event in its ancestry. If it does, check further whether the click was a "special" [middle-mouse-button / shift / ctrl-or-cmd / alt] click. If it was, then cause some other side-effect depending on the "special" modifier [i.e. open the target URL in a new tab, or new window, or download it] while silently failing to actually navigate this tab. Otherwise, proceed with the original semantics of the native `location` / `history` API call that was made."
If your game isn't specifically trying to have middle-clicking / ctrl/cmd-clicking navigate the tab, then this check+logic would never fire.
---
That being said, in theory, if you bound a listener to `auxclick` and told it to `e.preventDefault()`, that should maybe tell the browser you're doing something special and different where the middle-mouse button isn't just "the left mouse button with extra flags set", and therefore that navigation triggered via the middle mouse button shouldn't be seen as "navigation triggered via the left mouse button with extra flags set."
I say in theory because web developers would probably use that to prevent people from opening their site/app in multiple tabs at once. And the whole point here is that people should be able to do this whether web developers like it or not.
--
Also, a tangent:
Web developers may have what are, to them, good reasons for preventing the user from opening their page/app in multiple tabs.
For instance, each instance of a page/app on their site might open its own persistent websocket connection to their backend, and so having O(N) tabs open to their site means O(N) websocket connections. And if many users do that, their backend falls over.
Or each instance of the page/app thinks it has exclusive ownership of a local IndexedDB, and so might try to migrate the data in a non-atomic way at any time; where if other instances of the page/app are also running and accessing the same DB, they might blow up, or do the same thing and corrupt the DB.
(I've seen both of these in practice. In fact, I believe Reddit [in its new design] does the former; at around ~100 open Reddit tabs, they all crash! [I think it has something to do with their chat system.])
IMHO, any webpage that can't stand being open multiple times simultaneously is badly architected. Such pages have been "coddled" too long by browser vendors, by allowing devs to mostly disable the user's ability to easily open links as tabs. We should stop coddling these pages.
If we give users back the ability to easily open tabs on modern websites, we'll see the owners of these sites finally [probably begrudgingly] fix the problems that cause them to want to disable opening things in tabs in the first place.
I tend to open most links with a right click and then the first menu option: "Open link in new tab", and done so fast enough that I have not actually read the menu.
But when the "link" is not a link but just an image, I have then instead clicked on "Open image in new tab".
This has especially been annoying when I have happened to use DuckDuckGo's image search instead of Google's or Bing's and instead of having opened ten tabs with links, I have ten tabs with a thumbnail in each ...
You forget the most important part. When you inevitably screw up and break things it is nearly impossible to create enough garbage html to stop the anchor from doing its job.
Click handlers however may stop working if there is even the smallest typo or error far away from the code.
It won't just be that one link. Everything stops working everywhere on the site.
when i was doing .net programming way back in the day asp.net handled each navigation with a javascript event and it broke all that stuff. this was right before ruby on rails existed so maybe it’s better now.
This was specific to Web Forms, a now-deprecated framework that did a lot of implicit state management that necessitated POSTing to the server with an encrypted client-side state called the ViewState.
Its modern replacement ASP .NET MVC works much more like traditional web frameworks.
A good addition to this article is that most buttons should have type="button" on them. By default, buttons are type="submit", which if contained inside a form will submit that form.
I'm sure there are some devs who reach for a div because they're unaware of the proper way to disable submit behavior.
It does not. What it does do is submit the form, so if you trigger some fast change to the page or async behavior from the click event, you may never see it because the submission happens and the page reloads (or a different page loads if form action is set to a different URL). If you're relying on event bubbling, the click handler may run after the form is submitted, which is even less likely to do what you intend.
If you aren't expecting this (and don't know how to discover it e.g. by examining browser dev tools, server logs, etc.) then you'll assume the button is broken and... probably try something else.
Even if you do discover it, you may try something that won't quite have the same reliability - at one point it was common to see folks putting preventDefault() or return false in their click handlers to squelch the (correct) behavior, rather than changing the type of button.
It's the default for buttons inside forms, but it's SO trivial to add type="button" than any argument that div's are a better choice because of this should be dismissed as unserious trolling out-of-hand.
I seem to recall that once upon a time the default type for a button was in fact "button" but at some point (somewhere in the region of html 5 / es6) it was switched into "submit".
> they're unaware of the proper way to disable submit behavior.
That is an issue in favor of DIV, you don't accidentally set type="submit" because you don't know about that. There are many things many people don't know.
Using a DIV means you start from empty plate and explicitly add the features you want to add, which makes it easy to later remove or change those features when you want to.
Of course if your knowledge of HTML standards is great and Button exactly fits your current use-case you probably will use it, but designs and requirements change all the time.
Using DIV makes your design more transparent, you see there are certain features you have set to it by adding the attributes.
Using a Button means you (and other people reading your code) probably want to consult documentation to understand what it exactly does. With a DIV + attributes that is explicitly "spelled out".
You always want all the accessibility features. If your button is a button, then you want the whole lot: the correct role, tabability, keyboards shortcuts, everything. There is no situation where you only want some of those features.
So if you use a div, you _always_ need to add _all_ of the features. Whereas if you use a button, you usually need to remember to add the correct "type" attribute (although if you're building a form, you might not even need that).
You also mention transparency. A button makes your design transparent: it is a standard element, and web developers should know what it does. A div is not transparent - firstly, if I'm a developer reading that code, I need to look at context clues to understand what the authors' intent was (a tabbable element with a keydown handler and a click handler could be all sorts of elements, not just a button, so now I need to inspect event handlers and see what they do), and secondly, many people do not implement this stuff correctly, so what you're usually looking at is something that looks like it might have been intended as a button, but is missing a bunch of features. Was that intentional or did the author just forget some stuff?
This isn't really a "pros and cons" type of thing. Just use a button. It's doing all the work that you'd have to do manually, but automatically. Just use it.
So some developers cannot be trusted to figure out that they, in some cases, need to add a single attribute to the button, but they can reimplement a button with all its behavior, feel, look, and accessibility settings starting with a div?
No, but they can reimplement it in a good enough state for the vast majority of users without getting bothered by default behaviour or styling that might vary per browser.
Which, don't get me wrong, is still a problem, accessibility matters, but if there's a reason as to why something happens, the way to fix it is to actually look at that reason.
People don't do stuff poorly on purpose. There's also nobody out there for which button elements are some arcane and obscure thing, we all know they exist, so what is happening?
I'm not arguing for using divs instead of buttons, I'm arguing that if that happens there's a reason for it, and we ought to look at that reason and attempt to deal with it rather than admonishing developers in general.
Does it happen often? The unintended behavior seems extremely discoverable. “Hey, Google. Why does my button onclick not fire correctly?” “Oh, I need to set this stupid property.”
Would it be nice if this wasn’t necessary? Sure. But browsers aren’t going to break compatibility to fix this quirk.
> we ought to look at that reason and attempt to deal with it
I’m curious how you think we could deal with this aside from education.
DIV isn't a button with features disabled. DIV is something else entirely, and you have to emulate most of the features in Javascript, badly. As the original article explains...
How is it harder to learn “want normal button” => <button type=“button”…> than “want normal button” => <div role=“button” tabindex=“0”…>, plus the javascript for keyboard access (plus css for at least the cursor), etc.?
Agreed. It's not hard and it's definitely not unreasonable to expect front-end developers to know the very basics of semantic HTML and accessibility standards. It's literally their jobs
> but you should be overriding every one of those anyway.
I’m gonna be a bit of a pedant here, but button has 15 attributes. I feel like overriding every attribute on every element (or even just form controls) would make the people who complain about Tailwind classes being too verbose have an aneurysm
> Using a DIV means you start from empty plate and explicitly add the features you want to add,
Yep, which guarantees you will not add everything that's required for e.g. accessibility. It's not realistic for every single dev to be aware of every single important property of a button. This approach just doesn't scale.
> Of course if your knowledge of HTML standards is great and Button exactly fits your current use-case you probably will use it
i would have imagined that coding html should be done by people with basic understanding of it, at the bare minumum to know what a button is. but maybe that's just me being old and not going on with the vibes ... maybe i'm just going to facepalm a bit and get some fresh air.
I would love to see this expanded into "Just use the HTML element that was built for that explicit purpose". I feel like your average SPA developer doesn't understand what even a quarter of the HTML elements are meant for and just reinvent the wheel every time.
I wish the elements were just stylable, then. For example, the date picker sucks. I’d love to use it and eschew a JS based one, but my clients complain that it’s ugly.
When IE died I thought for sure the path was clear for highly styleable form elements and tables with all the features that countless third-party libraries have re-implemented for every new UI framework that comes out. Now I don't think we're going to get there before I die.
Yes it's called "just use the platform" and it's become a common refrain in the front-end world at least since HTML5 came out around 2014. Unfortunately it hasn't caught on in all parts of web dev but it's definitely seen as the "correct" way to do things
I vaguely remember, back in 2010, when I wrote my app, you couldn't style a button consistently across all browsers. They were grey boxes in firebox, or used other OS standard styling.
We had to invent our own buttons if we wanted it to look the same everywhere. I could be wrong though.
> I vaguely remember, back in 2010, when I wrote my app, you couldn't style a button consistently across all browsers. They were grey boxes in firebox, or used other OS standard styling.
I'm sure I'll trigger a lot of designers by saying this, but I'm probably not alone in valuing basic usability FAR above styling. I much rather have an ugly button that looks like 90's era Tcl/TK than something pretty that doesn't behave like I expect it to.
At the time we were trying to get away from Flash and embrace HTML5. We would never have been able to compete against nice looking flash games with un-styled grey boxes.
As an end user: I chose my web browser. I know how things tend to look in it. I know that this is not the same as how they look by default in other browsers. I do not care. I actively want it the widgets to look familiar, because that means I can readily parse the UI, and don't have to think about your design.
I actively do not want you to even try to "make it look the same everywhere", because the way you want it to look will in general be a way that degrades functionality for me. When you try, you send the message that you know better than me about how I want the GUI on my computer to work; and that makes me less inclined to use your site, and thus your product.
The great thing about using a platform as big as the web, which runs on a million different types of devices, is you can say "not my problem" and offload it to someone else.
When you're building a webpage or webapp, you're really building, like, 5% of an app. The other 95% is taken care of for you. You can always just say "fuck it, who cares if the button is gray in Firefox". Because you know what? Firefox might just fix it. And boom, you get the same result with no effort and no maintenance burden. And even if you don't, who cares? Maybe Firefox users like that and that's why they're on Firefox. All you need to know, as a web developer, is that the button does clicky things and is a button. That is a super power. We should use it!
Spoken like someone who's never had to interact with a designer. A designer will tell you the exact ratio the radius of the rounded buttons needs to be with respect to the height, and explain that this channels energy from the Earth's ley lines that resonates with the frequency of the vibrations of human brain waves, creating positive associations with your brand. And after hearing all that, the client will NOT be satisfied just bunging in Mozilla's standard gray buttons from the Windows 3.x era.
A whole generation of people who click all over to find places that do something. People have this problem where they feel 'proudly vested' in learning things that just weren't designed well.
10 years ago someone decided that dragging links is so much more important than selecting text, selecting text is scarcely possible. I'm going to have to fork a browser to give link-dragging the demotion it deserves. It was probably those DIV guys.
I might be a weirdo but I drag links all the time as it's how I open links as background tabs even though there is a right-click context menu entry for it
Unless the site is _really_ messing with events, holding alt on PC (Windows/Linux/ect) or Option on macOS lets you select text in links without triggering the link to navigate.
Almost as bad as copying a phone number on iOS instead of calling it (no idea if this is better on Android). The eagerness of iOS to call phone numbers which almost never is the thing I want to happen, is a source of much anxiety.
Android works great - lets you select the # and then gives you a context menu with the option to call (or copy, or search).
...unless someone made the phone # a tel: protocol link, in which case it has the selection behavior of any other link. Which is mostly fine, since "copy" is a context menu option for tel: links... unless some jerk put a tel: URL in that isn't the same number as what is shown in the text of the link, in which case it's time for some crazy hoop-jumping to either copy OR call the number.
I find non-selectable text maddening, but I recently found an macOS app called TextSniper that restores my control. It lets you select an area with the mouse (as you would when taking a screenshot) and it then OCRs the text and puts it into your clipboard. It almost makes Google Analytics usable again.
This is a great point that I don't see brought up enough. I don't know if I've ever purposely wanted to drag a link but I struggle to highlight/select some in a link every other day
There are browser extensions for selecting links. It used to be called Select Like A Boss, now it's Drag-Select Link Text. tl;dr: drag horizontally to select text, drag vertically to drag-and-drop as usual, press and hold to select the whole link text.
Is there an about:config option toggle for this in Firefox? Seems like the kind of thing that should be an option in there, given everything else you can adjust, and it seems a bit much to have to need a full on browser add-on to be able to do this.
I got bitten by this: user agent stylesheet contains "button {align-items: flex-start}" (at least in Chrome). The default behavior is "stretch". Spent an hour debugging why my flexboxs' sizes are wrong. I still want to use correct HTML elements as much as possible, but I do think using <div>s everywhere makes my small side projects so much easier, since I don't have to remember all the non-default behaviors.
`appearance: none` goes a long way to resetting button styles. I usually make a .unbuttonify class to use or extend for things I want to behave like buttons (free focus, accessibility, and interactivity) but look like, say, a hamburger menu toggle.
are css resets not in vogue any more? I still use them for all my side projects. As well as a normalize.css[0] that smooths over any additional browser inconsistencies. The original Meyer reset is definitely overkill, but there are a couple newer more minimal ones out there[2][3]
This is a good example of cases where LLMs can tend to write 'bad' code, because these patterns (i.e. reinventing wheels in the browser) are quite common in the wild, and LLMs tend to choose them over just using native features (such as buttons). I find myself telling Claude to revisit implementations and simplify them in these kinds of ways.
Another good example is bizarre error handling conventions when working in TypeScript. Claude will come up with tons of weird ways of doing this, using different approaches all over the place, but rarely consider simple patterns like 'return an expected value or an error'.
Search engines were also only good at looking up things, not software engineering. I find it a blessing that a human is still valuable in this process we call software engineering. And meanwhile you can use search engines just like LLMs to learn and discover much faster than without them.
Only nowadays LLMs are embedded in search engines so if you're looking for something that doesn't exist the top of the page is liable to hallucinate its existence.
I'm not sure I agree. This is coding for me, the engineering happened long before you knew you'd have to put a button-like thing there.
To me, it's a great example how LLMs are just as shit at coding as everything else. It's just that the majority of people using them to code don't look at how terrible it is as long as it runs.
Weird, I always use buttons when I can, unless what I need is not actually a button, but something that performs and on-click sort of like a button, like a hyperlink that navigates you through the web app.
MDN includes a “Permitted Content” section for elements, eg for button it says
> Phrasing content but there must be no Interactive content. If the <button> is the first child of a customizable select element, then it may also contain zero or one <selectedcontent> element.
“Ok, but what constitutes ‘phrasing content’ or ‘interactive content’?” you might ask. Those terms are links that give a very good overview of their constituent elements.
FWIW, you can generally figure out what's allowed fairly quickly by checking the content model for a given element[1]. Some browsers might be more or less restrictive, but for normal usage this'll be more than enough to avoid unexpected behavior.
What is the use case? It’s hard for me to think of a reason you’d want to wrap a link in a button.
If you want to navigate, use an anchor.
If you want to trigger JS logic, use a button with onclick handler.
If you want to navigate while doing some side effect like an API call, use an anchor with onclick handler (and don’t prevent default).
Based on what I see in the world, I suspect one reason is that a <div> makes it easier to apply some bizarro appearance to the button, so it not only doesn’t act like a button, it doesn’t even look like a button.
This comes from either business or the UX people who want stuff to look pixel perfect to their stupid wireframe.
Why does a website that sells to a pretty much captive audience who cares more about functionality than looks obsess so much about every single button looking pixel perfect to some arbitrary wireframe, I will never know.
Well, have you been on, I don't know, TV Tropes? They have those long lists, that are separated into "folders" on a single page. You can click on those "folders" to expand/collapse them, and it's implemented as a <div> with "onclick" property and <ul> inside it (well, used to IIRC; nowadays this <ul> is a child of a sibling <div>).
what's annoying about that example is that all of those <div>s could be buttons with no other changes. The only content inside the button <div> is the title and folder icon, not the list of examples associated with that title. That's just fine for a button!
The other thing I'd do is add `aria-controls=folder0` to the button that toggles visibility of the list with `id=folder0`
I use them EXTENSIVELY but some don't like them for being annoying to control en-masse with the "toggle all folders" button at the top. But yeah I 100% agree with you. I've snuck them into a webapp where I just needed that much local state rather than have the whole page's state care about the collapse/open state of that one thing.
Of course it does. tabindex=0 doesn't sort naturally into the automatic tabindex order, it sorts AFTER everything. So you are jumping through all the other tabindex elements, then you are jumping back to all tabindex=0.
> That's the same behavior as a <button> without tabindex, like the author is proposing.
Yes, but often you have elements with taborder > 0.
> It's generally advised not to set tabindex to anything but 0 or -1 and let the document order dictate tab order.
Only if document order is sane. Usually with modern websites it isn't, document order is a broken notion if you can position elements at will and e.g. put navigation at the bottom of a document but move it to the top by CSS. Which is actually a recommendation that some people make for acessibility...
What you usually want to do is assign a sensible taborder > 0 to the one form element that the user is probably currently using. Otherwise, he will pointlessly tab through search, menus, cookie bars and a ton of other pointless stuff first.
You almost certainly don't want to assign tab order manually. Theoretically, if your html is out-of-order for some reason, then you can fix it with taborder, but there are so many issues with out-of-order html that it's much better to avoid that in the first place. Even on modern websites, it is almost always easier to lay your html out in the correct order rather than messing around with the order via CSS. (I read an article recently by a web accessibility expert that discussed the issue of flexbox's order parameter and how the working group designing it failed to accessibility into account when adding it to the spec: https://alice.boxhall.au/articles/a-threat-model-for-accessi...)
You mention using it to skip a nav header or something similar, but (1) you have autofocus for that if you need it (and you don't usually need it), and (2) the pattern where you provide a "jump to content" button is typically a better approach, because it allows the user to decide what they want to do when they arrive on your site, rather than you deciding for them. If the "jump to content" button behind visible when focused and is the first element on the screen, then it works perfectly for screen readers and other keyboard users, and you don't need to handle taborder manually.
There are always exceptions to these sorts of rules, and some times tabindex might be necessary, but I've not yet come across a case where the problem couldn't be solved better in a different way.
> Yes, but often you have elements with taborder > 0.
You can just as easily apply the same tabindex to a div though.
> Only if document order is sane. Usually with modern websites it isn't...
Well that's the real problem, all your non-interactive content (like text) is going to be out of order too. You're just adding to the confusion if buttons and other inputs are in a different order from the content they're associated with.
> Otherwise, he will pointlessly tab through search, menus, cookie bars and a ton of other pointless stuff first.
The proper way of dealing with this is a "Skip to Main Content" element:
No, it isn't the proper way. That only works if you can see the skip link and know to press enter. Otherwise you will tab straight into the navigation. So possibly useful for screen readers, but completely useless for most keyboard users. Yet another stupid webdev workaround for a selfimposed problem.
What you should do is autofocus the first form element (if there is a form), give it tabindex=1 and number the other form elements in a sensible ascending tabindex order. Otherwise, proper semantic markup is sufficient, even for screen readers.
Your solution of focusing the first form element is pretty idiosyncratic. It's better to follow WAI patterns, because patterns have predictable behavior. Otherwise, keyboard users will have to learn how to interact with your website from scratch, instead of just following the same pattern they're used to from other sites.
I would be very surprised if a website autofocused almost anything on page load, except for very specific applications where that makes sense. I just tried clicking through some forms on gov.uk, which is a website that has spent a _lot_ of time testing and improving the UX of their forms, and none of them had autofocused elements, not even on later pages after having already filled in elements.
I can imagine screen readers would deal particularly poorly with this behaviour, because the user would be dropped in a field without any of the context of the page, just the field label to work with. However, I've not been able to test that out properly.
I don't think the behaviour you're describing is anywhere near as common as you think it is, and I suspect it would make a page less accessible for a number of kinds of users.
I'm saying tabindex=0 is naturally sorted wrt other naturally focusable elements. That matches the behavior of the <button> you're trying to emulate. I don't know what tabindex>0 has to do with this.
That is correct. From your link: "tabindex="0" means that the element should be focusable in sequential keyboard navigation, after any positive tabindex values. The focus navigation order of these elements is defined by their order in the document source.
"
tabindex=0 does sort naturally into the automatic tabindex order.
> So you are jumping through all the other tabindex elements
This part is correct (for elements with an explicit positive tabindex), which is why specifying an explicit positive tabindex is considered a code smell. If you don’t specify a tabindex on an element that’s focusable by default, it behaves like tabindex=0.
The issue isn't with tabindex=0 specifically, but fucking with tabindex in general. People go down that path, and start putting that shit on everything, like it's Frank's Red Hot.
And in my experience, the same folks who use div's instead of button's are the ones who don't know better and start throwing tabindex around.
"why do you need to listen for events at the document level?"
Not events generally, keydown events specifically, which do not fire on child elements of the document.
Hi, good premise overall, but there are just a lot of little things that are off.
- It only counts as "fucking with tabindex" if you give it a value that's not 0 or -1. You should give that specific disclaimer, because there are uses for tabindex=0 other than reimplementing <button>.
- Divs can definitely receive keydown events. If I go to an arbitrary web page, pick a div and run `div.tabIndex = 0;` + `div.addEventListener('keydown', console.log);`, I see those events coming through when I have the div keyboard-focused.
- "Run your code, somehow..." I think just calling `notRealBtn.click()` is the best option.
- Stupid but semi-interesting nitpick: 'keydown' is good for enter, but you should be listening to 'keyup' for the space bar. That's how real <button>s work anyway.
- The 'keyup' listener should call event.preventDefault() to prevent the default behavior of the space bar scrolling the page.
> Not events generally, keydown events specifically, which do not fire on child elements of the document.
Are you sure? I have a 17 year old HTML tool written using plain, vanilla JavaScript where keydown on a child element seems to have been working as expected.
I think that’s because it’s an input and not a div, so it can get focus. Im not sure whether tabindex is enough to make a div do that too, article suggests no
Related, because I don't always get to talk about buttons:
In my day job's shared library, we made a Clickable component that basically exists to abstract away the decision to use a button or an anchor tag, and resets the styles so both elements act the same way (both by default and when we apply styles to each).
We'd have a lot of confusion on the design side about button-as-design vs button-as-function and now we don't have to deal with that at all anymore.
And since the styling's been reset in a predictable way, it takes away one of the bigger reasons why people go to divs in the first place.
> One of the weirdest “debates” I seem to perpetually have with framework-enthusiastic developers is whether or not a <div> is “just as good” as a <button>.
How does one's desire to use a framework have any impact on their ability to recognize the usefulness of a button? Did I miss something? Is there some portion of any of the major framework documenation that suggests it's better to use divs instead of buttons?
> Among the React crowd, and also among people who seem to enjoy HTMX, I see a lot this…
Lol This has been a problem since way before React hit the scene. And people not using frameworks aren't magically immune to using divs instead of buttons.
The compiler and preprocessors are very picky about accessibility issues like these.
It was annoying in the beginning, but I tried to follow the rules it set out. It feels very professional, and I’m thankful for the guidance.
What’s annoying now is when my coworkers thinks I’m making things unnecessarily complicated by trying to follow these rules and guidelines. A <div> with an onclick is so easy compared to a <button> with extra styling and sometimes calling preventDefault().
I wonder if the "React Ry–thought-leader-guy" crowd (I love this not-so-subtle reference to Ryan Florence) preferred div over button because of the built-in styles that browsers used to apply to button elements.
In today's world, yes. But as with a LOT of complaints about "web developers!!!!" the answer is usually "because of the way the web WAS."
Before IE became Edge (and maybe even in the earliest versions of Edge), there were certain styles and descendants that simply did not work on a <button> element, like Flexbox and Grid positioning. So, if your button had content like an icon, and you were trying to align it a certain way with the label, you simply couldn't use some features of CSS like you could with a <div>. It was a pain in the ass.
In the same vein, do you remember the period where some browsers wouldn't allow you to make a button look like a link using CSS, because they thought it might deceive people and thus be a security issue? I do.
And similarly when people complain about the complexities of webpack and bundlers in general, do you remember including the jQuery <script> tag on the page and then almost always needing to call `jQuery.noConflict()`? And how in those days, most people got even THAT wrong, because atomic <script async onload> behavior didn't work correctly in all browsers yet, so other code could actually run in between a <script> and its onload callback, meaning the jQuery.noConflict call was ineffective and something else could steal it? I remember. webpack fixed that by automatically scoping everything.
Nowadays, a lot of those workarounds are unnecessary (depends what browsers you're supporting). But it's not like there was never a reason for them.
A cool thing about a lot of the agency work I did early in my career is our audience was not actually the stated audience, it was the staff at the company that hired us. And one of the companies was on IE7. So yeah, I've nine-sliced a gif or two and done a few clearfixes in my time, haha. Never ran into a lot of these, but these weren't apps so much as brochures that happened to be online. Luckily enough we could control the environment pretty well to avoid actually needing noConflict() on jQuery.
But that was in 2011–'13 and things have gotten a bit easier since then and it's up to us to stay abreast of what's possible on the platform.
> But this is not a new problem or one "among the react crowd".
I'm really struggling to understand how the author connected using frameworks with using divs for clickable elements. And yes, this problem predated React and HTMX.
One of my biggest pet peeves is throwing shade at a certain tech or group of people who use that tech and the proceeding to demonstrate that they don't know anything about said tech.
> Note: While <input> elements of type button are still perfectly valid HTML, the newer <button> element is now the favored way to create buttons. Given that a <button>'s label text is inserted between the opening and closing tags, you can include HTML in the label, even images.
I have two annoyances with button, one is you probably want to restyle it, so it’s not no effort vs a div.
Another is the warning that you can’t nest buttons.
For better or worse, this is common
The type of developers that would go with <div> in such cases are also those that know very, extremely little about semantic HTML and its purpose.
Then if one is challenged about using React or other heavy-JS framework when you don't really have to, the discussion will be met with utter even surprise that someone out there is actually not using React.
The web is darn simple, but we are the place where it is made extremely over engineered and expensive for both companies (salaries and 2-3x more staff needed than necessary because of the bloat) and users of their products (in terms of payloads).
And yet JS-heavy frameworks seems to have the best job market.
> You shouldn’t, though! Seriously, just don’t fuck with focus order.
And here i am, wishing some would do just this. Especially creators of log in forms which make the “reveal password” button the next focus point instead of the “submit” button
is pressing tab twice instead of a single time really that big of an issue? Messing with focus order is definitely a bad idea, but they could also use less semantic html to skip the reveal password "button". For people who can only use keyboards, this would make it impossible to access that feature however
it's not about being smarter. It's about being lazy. They don't wanna reset the default button css in order to perfectly match the figma they're being contracted to draw up. They simply don't care and the people contracting them don't have the knowledge to check if shortcuts were taken
However, I was tweaking my app today, after having read this article, and realized I'm using some anchor-links as buttons just because I wanted them to be styled exactly like a link.
Then I tried adding role="button" and of course I couldn't tab over to my link-button. So I added tabindex="0", just like the article tells you not to do, and that allowed me to tab over to it but I still couldn't activate it with spacebar.
So I finally caved and Googled "how do I make a button look just like a link" which brought me to this article: https://piccalil.li/blog/link-button/
> This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users
Are you sure? Screen readers should be able to detect a div with a onclick as interactable, no? And if they can’t, that seems like an exceedingly simple fix. I’d be shocked if they can’t already detect onclick.
A click handler can be doing a lot of things that aren't much like a button, like letting you close a modal if you click outside of it, capturing mouse events for a game, or passively recording events for analytics. All that a click handler tells you is that there's some code that sometimes cares about some clicks somewhere inside that element.
I can confirm. I got decent with VoiceOver as the "guy on the team who gives a shit about this" (unofficial title) and yeah, it stinks. Also, you don't necessarily move through the page linearly with a screen reader; the rotor lets you jump between links, or jump to forms, or jump to navs. The more semantic your markup, the better it will be populated.
It's worth noting that VoiceOver is well-known for being a lot more lax than most other screen readers. Other options tend to be a lot more strict around standards and what they'll announce.
And React. Using divs for buttons has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're using HTMX, React, or just plain Javascript.
Maybe they're a younger developer and weren't around pre-React, but the idea that using a div instead of a button for a clickable element is somehow new or only pertinent if you're using a framework makes me think the author is confused about these things work.
> This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users.
Is this actually true nowadays? Given that advice like this is often parrotted by people who don't actually use screen-reading software, I sometimes wonder if this is a situation where we've just been saying this and repeating this advice; meanwhile, screen readers have obviously become sophisticated enough to recognize that a div with an onclick handler on it is probably, you know, clickable and interactive.
There are well-defined standards for how the role of every element is determined, and according to those standards, adding an onclick handler does not change the role.
Screen readers also don't access the DOM directly, there's an extra abstraction layer. Browsers expose accessibility data to the appropriate OS API, and screen readers use the data exposed by the OS. There's too much variation as-is between different screen readers to be piling browser-specific behavior on top.
Maybe. But, again, these are all hypothetical ideas. Its been over 24 hours, and despite getting multiple responses, none of them are of the form: "I have used ScreenReaderSoftwareX, and on the latest version it does not interpret divs with an onclick handler has an interactable entity even though it is".
Screen reading software seems like it would have a very small market and I would expect it lags rather than keeps up with the ever changing ways people invent to build web pages.
Have you tested this? Often click handlers are on some non-interactive ancestor element, it is not a good heuristic for something being interactive itself or what name it should have. Sometimes the listener is on the body element and we just parse out the triggering element and do something.
This piece of advice, to me, just feels like a piece of advice constantly repeated by a bunch of people, none of whom actually use the software for which the piece of advice is meant to benefit. That scares me; like we've all lost touch with the ground truth on this one; I'd love to re-sync with it, that's what I'm trying to do, I just don't have the first clue how to do it.
You can start with turning on eg switch controls on your OS, or the built in OS screen reader.
Also, a lot of professional accessibility devices by makers like Dynavox are expensive, so your best bet is seeing what documentation you can dig up.
This like WCAG guide accessibility standards, and coding to be in line with those is probably your best bet at achieving the goals of your website being accessible by assistive technology.
Everyone can guess what screen readers can do, everyone can also get a _basic_ idea of how they’ll actually work, but more often than not the people who will have the most experience are those with the least ability to affect change. Using elements for their intended purposes and coding to accessible standards is probably the most impactful way any of us as engineers can help ensure a smooth experience for the target audience.
Screen readers have and continue to lag in implementing standards designed specifically for accessibility, so I would say they are obviously not sophisticated enough.
tbh, I've started to grow a disdain for front-end developers. It seems their favorite pastime is re-inventing the wheel, and every single time, they destroy something while gaining absolutely nothing.
Stop implementing date pickers when <input type="date"> exists.
Stop implementing smooth scrolling. Browsers already do it on their own, and your implementation will not work. Really, just don't mess with scrolling in general. Don't make scrolling have "momentum". Don't change scroll speed. One site I've been to goes out of its way to change how much a scroll wheel click scrolls the page. For fuck's sake, can someone explain to me why that would be a feature!? Why go out of your way to override a specific user preference!?
All this bullshit changes expected behaviors, reduces accessibility, reduces the performance of your web page (and therefore increases CPU and battery usage)...for no reason whatsoever.
> Stop implementing date pickers when <input type="date"> exists.
This still has issues in some browsers. With sites already having other methods from before this existed, there isn’t a good reason to move to it, when they’ll need the custom version for browsers that lack full support.
Your knowledge is out of date. <input type="date"> been implemented in nearly every browser since 2018, with the exception of Safari which was slow and didn't put it in until 2021, and Opera Mini which still doesn't have it at all, but who the hell uses Opera Mini?
> 1. This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users.
It has the "onclick" property set though. The other two points are pretty valid, however. It's a shame we don't have a proper "onsubmit" property or something like that. "Oninteract"?
My very similar pet peeve is about websites that use `onclick` handlers and similar to implement navigation. Just use a damn anchor tag, which gets you correct link behavior for free:
* works with middle click for new tab
* integrates with accessibility devices
* works with right click + open in new window or similar options
* etc. etc. etc.
If it's notionally navigation, don't use javascript soup: use a link.
I've seen an increase in people doing this sort of thing over the past few years. I imagine it has something to do with frameworks and ignorance or apathy, but the old fashioned way almost always provides the best UX.
To anyone reading who has tried to get fancy with a substitute for the <a> tag, I wish you mild discomfort and inconvenience.
What's scary is that with proliferation of LLM-assisted code editors and vibe coding, and considering the training material for these models, this is only going to get worse and worse.
Could it be that the devs who write that code are not allowed to touch the CSS so they implement the visual functionality they want in their framework instead of telling the design team their intent?
There could be any number of weird constraints that would lead a developer who knows better to do such a thing in a specific situation, but someone designed (or failed to intentionally design) the system in question.
That person should sit alone in a room with no distractions and think about what they did.
No, it is because a significant subset of React developers do not know how to write HTML.
These people clearly don't care for mild discomfort and inconvenience already...
Yup. I think a lot of the devs that started with React jumped straight into the "fun" stuff without learning some of the "boring" fundamentals.
And those devs set the wrong patterns and standards for others following hot behind them. The only time I can remember needing to dress a div up like a button was when an accordion trigger was just a giant button and anything passed in would be rendered inside, but I needed an action to the right of the trigger title. But those happen super rarely. You can't just pass in a button as it was invalid html to have nested buttons obviously. Yes, I know I could probably use css to absolutely position it or something but that takes it out of the flow and starts hacking about it in another way.
This reminds me of Microsoft's website checker in Office 365.
Click a link with left-mouse, and it'll intercept the page with their safety checker (that doesn't work half of the time) before forwarding you.
But middle click? No safety for you.
Shush! That's a feature to avoid the 10-second mandatory wait on intranet links that their safety checker cannot possibly reach. :)
Also, get rid of JS based scrolling. I scroll a lot with pressing the middle mouse button. Too many sites break that.
Sites that bind the arrow keys so I can't use them to scroll with.
oh, 100% yes! The job project i joined somewhat recently is a moderately-complex React web app, and none of the navigation elements are actual links. Everything is done by onClick handling, even thought many things are, conceptually, just links. I have no idea why this kind of thing is so widespread on the web front-end world.
We've reached the point, years ago even, where image hosting sites will not show you an image without JavaScript, even. Just use a damn img tag.
If they link to the image directly, it makes it easier for users to share that link directly. We cannot have that, so instead we get a web page using exabytes of JS to show the image and a bunch of ads.
I wonder why browsers don't intercept JS-triggered navigation (or history.push) events that happen with a click handler on the stack — where it can be determined from the event data of that click handler that the user additionally used the middle mouse button or was holding cmd/ctrl at the time — and rewrite them into navigation-in-new-tab. (Ideally, without making the caller aware that anything different happened than what it was expecting.)
It might not be what the developer of the site/app intended; but it's exactly the semantics the user is expressing their desire to trigger. So why not do what the user wants? Browsers are user agents, not developer agents, after all.
(Before you say "that sounds like a layering violation" — well, yes it is, but that particular layering violation already exists to support most browsers' JS engines' "suppress popup-window / new-tab navigation if the stack of the navigating call doesn't contain a click event" logic. The code ugliness was already bought and paid for; we may as well reap as much benefit from it as we can!)
> it's exactly the semantics the user is expressing their desire to trigger.
That’s not necessarily true. You could imagine writing perhaps a video game or something where this control is intended to have a different meaning. For this reason, I don’t think this is a liberty that browser developers can take.
Vivaldi recently took liberty to "restore" a scrollbar to the body tag of my app even though I had intentionally moved it to an inner div. It royally effed up my app with no workaround.
Their intentions were good, but.. you don't know what devs are going to do. As long as they're following spec, let them. Users can vote with their wallet or eyeballs.
NB: I don't want to throw too much shade at Vivaldi. I reported it. They fixed it. Still my fav browser
Keep in mind that this check+logic would only come into play within the call to `history.push` or the `window.location.href` setter.
It's not "add a browser-default click event listener that shims in special behavior" (which wouldn't be able to catch the JS navigation in the first place, since that would be occurring in its own, separate click event listener.)
It's instead "when I-the-browser have been called by page JS to do something navigation-like through the native `location` or `history` APIs, first check if the current call stack has a event-listener call triggered by a browser-delivered click event in its ancestry. If it does, check further whether the click was a "special" [middle-mouse-button / shift / ctrl-or-cmd / alt] click. If it was, then cause some other side-effect depending on the "special" modifier [i.e. open the target URL in a new tab, or new window, or download it] while silently failing to actually navigate this tab. Otherwise, proceed with the original semantics of the native `location` / `history` API call that was made."
If your game isn't specifically trying to have middle-clicking / ctrl/cmd-clicking navigate the tab, then this check+logic would never fire.
---
That being said, in theory, if you bound a listener to `auxclick` and told it to `e.preventDefault()`, that should maybe tell the browser you're doing something special and different where the middle-mouse button isn't just "the left mouse button with extra flags set", and therefore that navigation triggered via the middle mouse button shouldn't be seen as "navigation triggered via the left mouse button with extra flags set."
I say in theory because web developers would probably use that to prevent people from opening their site/app in multiple tabs at once. And the whole point here is that people should be able to do this whether web developers like it or not.
--
Also, a tangent:
Web developers may have what are, to them, good reasons for preventing the user from opening their page/app in multiple tabs.
For instance, each instance of a page/app on their site might open its own persistent websocket connection to their backend, and so having O(N) tabs open to their site means O(N) websocket connections. And if many users do that, their backend falls over.
Or each instance of the page/app thinks it has exclusive ownership of a local IndexedDB, and so might try to migrate the data in a non-atomic way at any time; where if other instances of the page/app are also running and accessing the same DB, they might blow up, or do the same thing and corrupt the DB.
(I've seen both of these in practice. In fact, I believe Reddit [in its new design] does the former; at around ~100 open Reddit tabs, they all crash! [I think it has something to do with their chat system.])
IMHO, any webpage that can't stand being open multiple times simultaneously is badly architected. Such pages have been "coddled" too long by browser vendors, by allowing devs to mostly disable the user's ability to easily open links as tabs. We should stop coddling these pages.
If we give users back the ability to easily open tabs on modern websites, we'll see the owners of these sites finally [probably begrudgingly] fix the problems that cause them to want to disable opening things in tabs in the first place.
I tend to open most links with a right click and then the first menu option: "Open link in new tab", and done so fast enough that I have not actually read the menu. But when the "link" is not a link but just an image, I have then instead clicked on "Open image in new tab".
This has especially been annoying when I have happened to use DuckDuckGo's image search instead of Google's or Bing's and instead of having opened ten tabs with links, I have ten tabs with a thumbnail in each ...
In case you want to save a few seconds of your life, you can also middle click or ctrl click instead of right clicking + left clicking on the menu.
...Except on websites that override this to make those links open in the current tab, or just silently fail.
On the modern web, the menu is more reliable.
You forget the most important part. When you inevitably screw up and break things it is nearly impossible to create enough garbage html to stop the anchor from doing its job.
Click handlers however may stop working if there is even the smallest typo or error far away from the code.
It won't just be that one link. Everything stops working everywhere on the site.
Yes! If it's clickable, it should either be a button or a link.
there are plenty of other vanilla html elements that are clickable. <details>, <input type=[button|checkbox|radio|file|etc]>, <label>, <select>, etc
True although the built-in click behavior is sufficient on these, ie you should not need to add onclick. Which should be for <button> and <a>
when i was doing .net programming way back in the day asp.net handled each navigation with a javascript event and it broke all that stuff. this was right before ruby on rails existed so maybe it’s better now.
This was specific to Web Forms, a now-deprecated framework that did a lot of implicit state management that necessitated POSTing to the server with an encrypted client-side state called the ViewState.
Its modern replacement ASP .NET MVC works much more like traditional web frameworks.
A good addition to this article is that most buttons should have type="button" on them. By default, buttons are type="submit", which if contained inside a form will submit that form.
I'm sure there are some devs who reach for a div because they're unaware of the proper way to disable submit behavior.
Indeed this long rant by OP misses the critical info.
A button of default type will do weird things, IIRC it will skip the JS handler onCick, for instance.
I don't think it skips the handler behavior on default but can't check now
It does not. What it does do is submit the form, so if you trigger some fast change to the page or async behavior from the click event, you may never see it because the submission happens and the page reloads (or a different page loads if form action is set to a different URL). If you're relying on event bubbling, the click handler may run after the form is submitted, which is even less likely to do what you intend.
If you aren't expecting this (and don't know how to discover it e.g. by examining browser dev tools, server logs, etc.) then you'll assume the button is broken and... probably try something else.
Even if you do discover it, you may try something that won't quite have the same reliability - at one point it was common to see folks putting preventDefault() or return false in their click handlers to squelch the (correct) behavior, rather than changing the type of button.
Yes, you are right. Thanks for the lengthy explanation.
Believe that default is for <input type="submit">, not <button>.
It's the default for buttons inside forms, but it's SO trivial to add type="button" than any argument that div's are a better choice because of this should be dismissed as unserious trolling out-of-hand.
Nope, it's the default:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
Maybe you’re thinking of <input type=“button”>, which doesn’t submit?
I seem to recall that once upon a time the default type for a button was in fact "button" but at some point (somewhere in the region of html 5 / es6) it was switched into "submit".
The nice thing about actually versioning standards (instead of doing that lazy "living standard" shit) is that you can actually look such things up.
https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#adef-type-BU...
Right. I learned it the hard way lol
> they're unaware of the proper way to disable submit behavior.
That is an issue in favor of DIV, you don't accidentally set type="submit" because you don't know about that. There are many things many people don't know.
Using a DIV means you start from empty plate and explicitly add the features you want to add, which makes it easy to later remove or change those features when you want to.
Of course if your knowledge of HTML standards is great and Button exactly fits your current use-case you probably will use it, but designs and requirements change all the time.
Using DIV makes your design more transparent, you see there are certain features you have set to it by adding the attributes.
Using a Button means you (and other people reading your code) probably want to consult documentation to understand what it exactly does. With a DIV + attributes that is explicitly "spelled out".
Just some pros and cons.
You always want all the accessibility features. If your button is a button, then you want the whole lot: the correct role, tabability, keyboards shortcuts, everything. There is no situation where you only want some of those features.
So if you use a div, you _always_ need to add _all_ of the features. Whereas if you use a button, you usually need to remember to add the correct "type" attribute (although if you're building a form, you might not even need that).
You also mention transparency. A button makes your design transparent: it is a standard element, and web developers should know what it does. A div is not transparent - firstly, if I'm a developer reading that code, I need to look at context clues to understand what the authors' intent was (a tabbable element with a keydown handler and a click handler could be all sorts of elements, not just a button, so now I need to inspect event handlers and see what they do), and secondly, many people do not implement this stuff correctly, so what you're usually looking at is something that looks like it might have been intended as a button, but is missing a bunch of features. Was that intentional or did the author just forget some stuff?
This isn't really a "pros and cons" type of thing. Just use a button. It's doing all the work that you'd have to do manually, but automatically. Just use it.
So some developers cannot be trusted to figure out that they, in some cases, need to add a single attribute to the button, but they can reimplement a button with all its behavior, feel, look, and accessibility settings starting with a div?
No, but they can reimplement it in a good enough state for the vast majority of users without getting bothered by default behaviour or styling that might vary per browser.
Which, don't get me wrong, is still a problem, accessibility matters, but if there's a reason as to why something happens, the way to fix it is to actually look at that reason.
A button can easily be styled and it’s definitely easier to fix the one little behavior than to reimplement all the other behaviors that are needed.
And yet often this is not what happens. Why?
People don't do stuff poorly on purpose. There's also nobody out there for which button elements are some arcane and obscure thing, we all know they exist, so what is happening?
I'm not arguing for using divs instead of buttons, I'm arguing that if that happens there's a reason for it, and we ought to look at that reason and attempt to deal with it rather than admonishing developers in general.
Does it happen often? The unintended behavior seems extremely discoverable. “Hey, Google. Why does my button onclick not fire correctly?” “Oh, I need to set this stupid property.”
Would it be nice if this wasn’t necessary? Sure. But browsers aren’t going to break compatibility to fix this quirk.
> we ought to look at that reason and attempt to deal with it
I’m curious how you think we could deal with this aside from education.
It happens often using react because react is full of foot guns
React in a nutshell
DIV isn't a button with features disabled. DIV is something else entirely, and you have to emulate most of the features in Javascript, badly. As the original article explains...
No. Objectively no.
It is INFINITELY easier to add type="button" than all of the other shit I mentioned in my article.
Just curious, what does it mean for something to be "infinitely easier" than something else? :-)
How is it harder to learn “want normal button” => <button type=“button”…> than “want normal button” => <div role=“button” tabindex=“0”…>, plus the javascript for keyboard access (plus css for at least the cursor), etc.?
Agreed. It's not hard and it's definitely not unreasonable to expect front-end developers to know the very basics of semantic HTML and accessibility standards. It's literally their jobs
Every input should have a type. It's a good thing to put in a linter and run before you consider your code complete.
Yes, the default is bad, but you should be overriding every one of those anyway.
> but you should be overriding every one of those anyway.
I’m gonna be a bit of a pedant here, but button has 15 attributes. I feel like overriding every attribute on every element (or even just form controls) would make the people who complain about Tailwind classes being too verbose have an aneurysm
> Using a DIV means you start from empty plate and explicitly add the features you want to add,
Yep, which guarantees you will not add everything that's required for e.g. accessibility. It's not realistic for every single dev to be aware of every single important property of a button. This approach just doesn't scale.
> Using a DIV means you start from empty plate
When comparing to a Button, that's a bug, not a feature.
> Of course if your knowledge of HTML standards is great and Button exactly fits your current use-case you probably will use it
i would have imagined that coding html should be done by people with basic understanding of it, at the bare minumum to know what a button is. but maybe that's just me being old and not going on with the vibes ... maybe i'm just going to facepalm a bit and get some fresh air.
I would love to see this expanded into "Just use the HTML element that was built for that explicit purpose". I feel like your average SPA developer doesn't understand what even a quarter of the HTML elements are meant for and just reinvent the wheel every time.
I wish the elements were just stylable, then. For example, the date picker sucks. I’d love to use it and eschew a JS based one, but my clients complain that it’s ugly.
When IE died I thought for sure the path was clear for highly styleable form elements and tables with all the features that countless third-party libraries have re-implemented for every new UI framework that comes out. Now I don't think we're going to get there before I die.
Yes it's called "just use the platform" and it's become a common refrain in the front-end world at least since HTML5 came out around 2014. Unfortunately it hasn't caught on in all parts of web dev but it's definitely seen as the "correct" way to do things
I heard it almost a decade ago in Polymer and Web components circles https://www.polymer-project.org/blog/2016-05-26-IO-2016-Reca...
It’s strange to look back and see that most spa projects still just bundle it all up into a gigantic js file…
I vaguely remember, back in 2010, when I wrote my app, you couldn't style a button consistently across all browsers. They were grey boxes in firebox, or used other OS standard styling.
We had to invent our own buttons if we wanted it to look the same everywhere. I could be wrong though.
> I vaguely remember, back in 2010, when I wrote my app, you couldn't style a button consistently across all browsers. They were grey boxes in firebox, or used other OS standard styling.
I'm sure I'll trigger a lot of designers by saying this, but I'm probably not alone in valuing basic usability FAR above styling. I much rather have an ugly button that looks like 90's era Tcl/TK than something pretty that doesn't behave like I expect it to.
And I'll probably trigger you by saying I'm probably not alone not missing that era.
At the time we were trying to get away from Flash and embrace HTML5. We would never have been able to compete against nice looking flash games with un-styled grey boxes.
As an end user: I chose my web browser. I know how things tend to look in it. I know that this is not the same as how they look by default in other browsers. I do not care. I actively want it the widgets to look familiar, because that means I can readily parse the UI, and don't have to think about your design.
I actively do not want you to even try to "make it look the same everywhere", because the way you want it to look will in general be a way that degrades functionality for me. When you try, you send the message that you know better than me about how I want the GUI on my computer to work; and that makes me less inclined to use your site, and thus your product.
The great thing about using a platform as big as the web, which runs on a million different types of devices, is you can say "not my problem" and offload it to someone else.
When you're building a webpage or webapp, you're really building, like, 5% of an app. The other 95% is taken care of for you. You can always just say "fuck it, who cares if the button is gray in Firefox". Because you know what? Firefox might just fix it. And boom, you get the same result with no effort and no maintenance burden. And even if you don't, who cares? Maybe Firefox users like that and that's why they're on Firefox. All you need to know, as a web developer, is that the button does clicky things and is a button. That is a super power. We should use it!
Spoken like someone who's never had to interact with a designer. A designer will tell you the exact ratio the radius of the rounded buttons needs to be with respect to the height, and explain that this channels energy from the Earth's ley lines that resonates with the frequency of the vibrations of human brain waves, creating positive associations with your brand. And after hearing all that, the client will NOT be satisfied just bunging in Mozilla's standard gray buttons from the Windows 3.x era.
Of course I've worked in corporate world and with designers. And yeah it sucks and is stupid. Most modern software is really, really bad.
My point is that that is a choice. Not our choice really, but a choice in general. And we can do better.
> doesn't understand what even a quarter of the HTML elements
I’d welcome people knowing a quarter of the html elements.
Because in my experience, it seems like people only know 1 html element, which is DIV and it’s used for everything.
A whole generation of people who click all over to find places that do something. People have this problem where they feel 'proudly vested' in learning things that just weren't designed well.
10 years ago someone decided that dragging links is so much more important than selecting text, selecting text is scarcely possible. I'm going to have to fork a browser to give link-dragging the demotion it deserves. It was probably those DIV guys.
I might be a weirdo but I drag links all the time as it's how I open links as background tabs even though there is a right-click context menu entry for it
Unless the site is _really_ messing with events, holding alt on PC (Windows/Linux/ect) or Option on macOS lets you select text in links without triggering the link to navigate.
Holy fsck! 30 years on the web and today I learn about this Alt/Option trick. Thank you!
Same here, that literally just changed my life
[Middle mouse button] or [left mouse button + ctrl] also does this.
How about on mobile? This is a constant headache.
Select something directly before or after the link and then move the start and end of your selection to only select the link.
Almost as bad as copying a phone number on iOS instead of calling it (no idea if this is better on Android). The eagerness of iOS to call phone numbers which almost never is the thing I want to happen, is a source of much anxiety.
Android works great - lets you select the # and then gives you a context menu with the option to call (or copy, or search).
...unless someone made the phone # a tel: protocol link, in which case it has the selection behavior of any other link. Which is mostly fine, since "copy" is a context menu option for tel: links... unless some jerk put a tel: URL in that isn't the same number as what is shown in the text of the link, in which case it's time for some crazy hoop-jumping to either copy OR call the number.
> selecting text is scarcely possible
I find non-selectable text maddening, but I recently found an macOS app called TextSniper that restores my control. It lets you select an area with the mouse (as you would when taking a screenshot) and it then OCRs the text and puts it into your clipboard. It almost makes Google Analytics usable again.
This is a great point that I don't see brought up enough. I don't know if I've ever purposely wanted to drag a link but I struggle to highlight/select some in a link every other day
There are browser extensions for selecting links. It used to be called Select Like A Boss, now it's Drag-Select Link Text. tl;dr: drag horizontally to select text, drag vertically to drag-and-drop as usual, press and hold to select the whole link text.
Is there an about:config option toggle for this in Firefox? Seems like the kind of thing that should be an option in there, given everything else you can adjust, and it seems a bit much to have to need a full on browser add-on to be able to do this.
I got bitten by this: user agent stylesheet contains "button {align-items: flex-start}" (at least in Chrome). The default behavior is "stretch". Spent an hour debugging why my flexboxs' sizes are wrong. I still want to use correct HTML elements as much as possible, but I do think using <div>s everywhere makes my small side projects so much easier, since I don't have to remember all the non-default behaviors.
I probably should have included "if you're building for the frontend you should probably know CSS". Good follow-up piece. Thanks for mentioning it!
`appearance: none` goes a long way to resetting button styles. I usually make a .unbuttonify class to use or extend for things I want to behave like buttons (free focus, accessibility, and interactivity) but look like, say, a hamburger menu toggle.
are css resets not in vogue any more? I still use them for all my side projects. As well as a normalize.css[0] that smooths over any additional browser inconsistencies. The original Meyer reset is definitely overkill, but there are a couple newer more minimal ones out there[2][3]
[0] https://necolas.github.io/normalize.css/
[1] https://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/
[2] https://www.joshwcomeau.com/css/custom-css-reset/
[3] https://piccalil.li/blog/a-more-modern-css-reset/
Less so now that the `all: unset` property is getting better support.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/unset
100%
Use elements as close to their original intention as possible
This is a good example of cases where LLMs can tend to write 'bad' code, because these patterns (i.e. reinventing wheels in the browser) are quite common in the wild, and LLMs tend to choose them over just using native features (such as buttons). I find myself telling Claude to revisit implementations and simplify them in these kinds of ways.
Another good example is bizarre error handling conventions when working in TypeScript. Claude will come up with tons of weird ways of doing this, using different approaches all over the place, but rarely consider simple patterns like 'return an expected value or an error'.
These are great examples of how LLMs are great at writing code, but pretty bad at software engineering
Search engines were also only good at looking up things, not software engineering. I find it a blessing that a human is still valuable in this process we call software engineering. And meanwhile you can use search engines just like LLMs to learn and discover much faster than without them.
Only nowadays LLMs are embedded in search engines so if you're looking for something that doesn't exist the top of the page is liable to hallucinate its existence.
I'm not sure I agree. This is coding for me, the engineering happened long before you knew you'd have to put a button-like thing there.
To me, it's a great example how LLMs are just as shit at coding as everything else. It's just that the majority of people using them to code don't look at how terrible it is as long as it runs.
> and LLMs tend to choose them over just using native features (such as buttons).
Of course course the LLMs do that. The pattern contains a lot more tokens that naturally follow on from each other.
Weird, I always use buttons when I can, unless what I need is not actually a button, but something that performs and on-click sort of like a button, like a hyperlink that navigates you through the web app.
I guess if it doesn't update the url, it's a button.
If it changes the url, it should be a link. At least that's how I've always done it.
Is is not okay to wrap a link inside a button ? I guess not
Which elements are allowed to wrap which is unclear to me
MDN includes a “Permitted Content” section for elements, eg for button it says
> Phrasing content but there must be no Interactive content. If the <button> is the first child of a customizable select element, then it may also contain zero or one <selectedcontent> element.
“Ok, but what constitutes ‘phrasing content’ or ‘interactive content’?” you might ask. Those terms are links that give a very good overview of their constituent elements.
FWIW, you can generally figure out what's allowed fairly quickly by checking the content model for a given element[1]. Some browsers might be more or less restrictive, but for normal usage this'll be more than enough to avoid unexpected behavior.
[1]: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#the-button-element:concept-ele...
What is the use case? It’s hard for me to think of a reason you’d want to wrap a link in a button. If you want to navigate, use an anchor. If you want to trigger JS logic, use a button with onclick handler. If you want to navigate while doing some side effect like an API call, use an anchor with onclick handler (and don’t prevent default).
Literally absolutely never ever do this.
> like a hyperlink that navigates you through the web app
You mean an <a> tag?
Well it might be a SPA so it's not a real link but rather just a function call + pushing some stuff to history and updating the URL (if you're lucky!)
Why is the <div> option proposed by anyone in the first place?
Based on what I see in the world, I suspect one reason is that a <div> makes it easier to apply some bizarro appearance to the button, so it not only doesn’t act like a button, it doesn’t even look like a button.
This comes from either business or the UX people who want stuff to look pixel perfect to their stupid wireframe.
Why does a website that sells to a pretty much captive audience who cares more about functionality than looks obsess so much about every single button looking pixel perfect to some arbitrary wireframe, I will never know.
Things looking intentionally designed in great detail is also a function, despite programmer protests.
Well, have you been on, I don't know, TV Tropes? They have those long lists, that are separated into "folders" on a single page. You can click on those "folders" to expand/collapse them, and it's implemented as a <div> with "onclick" property and <ul> inside it (well, used to IIRC; nowadays this <ul> is a child of a sibling <div>).
> You can click on those "folders" to expand/collapse them, and it's implemented as a <div> with
... Isn't that what <details> and <summary> are for?
what's annoying about that example is that all of those <div>s could be buttons with no other changes. The only content inside the button <div> is the title and folder icon, not the list of examples associated with that title. That's just fine for a button!
The other thing I'd do is add `aria-controls=folder0` to the button that toggles visibility of the list with `id=folder0`
I'll do you one better and argue they could `<details>` elements. This is a perfect use case for that.
I use them EXTENSIVELY but some don't like them for being annoying to control en-masse with the "toggle all folders" button at the top. But yeah I 100% agree with you. I've snuck them into a webapp where I just needed that much local state rather than have the whole page's state care about the collapse/open state of that one thing.
The most common reason I've seen is whining about having to override default button styles.
I too have encountered this reasoning.
Then I write some basic CSS and show them they have nothing to fear.
Yet, I still remain irritated beyond belief that its such a common thing. In 2025. Hell, in 2017!
I don't know what to do about it, other than constantly remind people about things, but it gets tiring.
Though, its a great interview question. Its a quick way to understand if someone knows the fundamentals or not.
Kinda like how people got ".bind" wrong on functions for years.
- tabindex=0 doesn’t affect ordering, does it?
- why do you need to listen for events at the document level?
not that i disagree with the article, but some arguments didn’t seem right.
> - tabindex=0 doesn’t affect ordering, does it?
Of course it does. tabindex=0 doesn't sort naturally into the automatic tabindex order, it sorts AFTER everything. So you are jumping through all the other tabindex elements, then you are jumping back to all tabindex=0.
That's the same behavior as a <button> without tabindex, like the author is proposing.
It's generally advised not to set tabindex to anything but 0 or -1 and let the document order dictate tab order.
> That's the same behavior as a <button> without tabindex, like the author is proposing.
Yes, but often you have elements with taborder > 0.
> It's generally advised not to set tabindex to anything but 0 or -1 and let the document order dictate tab order.
Only if document order is sane. Usually with modern websites it isn't, document order is a broken notion if you can position elements at will and e.g. put navigation at the bottom of a document but move it to the top by CSS. Which is actually a recommendation that some people make for acessibility...
What you usually want to do is assign a sensible taborder > 0 to the one form element that the user is probably currently using. Otherwise, he will pointlessly tab through search, menus, cookie bars and a ton of other pointless stuff first.
You almost certainly don't want to assign tab order manually. Theoretically, if your html is out-of-order for some reason, then you can fix it with taborder, but there are so many issues with out-of-order html that it's much better to avoid that in the first place. Even on modern websites, it is almost always easier to lay your html out in the correct order rather than messing around with the order via CSS. (I read an article recently by a web accessibility expert that discussed the issue of flexbox's order parameter and how the working group designing it failed to accessibility into account when adding it to the spec: https://alice.boxhall.au/articles/a-threat-model-for-accessi...)
You mention using it to skip a nav header or something similar, but (1) you have autofocus for that if you need it (and you don't usually need it), and (2) the pattern where you provide a "jump to content" button is typically a better approach, because it allows the user to decide what they want to do when they arrive on your site, rather than you deciding for them. If the "jump to content" button behind visible when focused and is the first element on the screen, then it works perfectly for screen readers and other keyboard users, and you don't need to handle taborder manually.
There are always exceptions to these sorts of rules, and some times tabindex might be necessary, but I've not yet come across a case where the problem couldn't be solved better in a different way.
> Yes, but often you have elements with taborder > 0.
You can just as easily apply the same tabindex to a div though.
> Only if document order is sane. Usually with modern websites it isn't...
Well that's the real problem, all your non-interactive content (like text) is going to be out of order too. You're just adding to the confusion if buttons and other inputs are in a different order from the content they're associated with.
> Otherwise, he will pointlessly tab through search, menus, cookie bars and a ton of other pointless stuff first.
The proper way of dealing with this is a "Skip to Main Content" element:
https://webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/
> The proper way of dealing with this is a "Skip to Main Content" element: > > https://webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/
No, it isn't the proper way. That only works if you can see the skip link and know to press enter. Otherwise you will tab straight into the navigation. So possibly useful for screen readers, but completely useless for most keyboard users. Yet another stupid webdev workaround for a selfimposed problem.
What you should do is autofocus the first form element (if there is a form), give it tabindex=1 and number the other form elements in a sensible ascending tabindex order. Otherwise, proper semantic markup is sufficient, even for screen readers.
Usually you would have it appear when it's focused, like this for example:
https://www.nytimes.com/
And yes, this is an acceptable solution according to the W3C:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G1
Your solution of focusing the first form element is pretty idiosyncratic. It's better to follow WAI patterns, because patterns have predictable behavior. Otherwise, keyboard users will have to learn how to interact with your website from scratch, instead of just following the same pattern they're used to from other sites.
Any website implementing a form for data entry is expected by any sane user to autofocus the first form element.
I would be very surprised if a website autofocused almost anything on page load, except for very specific applications where that makes sense. I just tried clicking through some forms on gov.uk, which is a website that has spent a _lot_ of time testing and improving the UX of their forms, and none of them had autofocused elements, not even on later pages after having already filled in elements.
I can imagine screen readers would deal particularly poorly with this behaviour, because the user would be dropped in a field without any of the context of the page, just the field label to work with. However, I've not been able to test that out properly.
I don't think the behaviour you're describing is anywhere near as common as you think it is, and I suspect it would make a page less accessible for a number of kinds of users.
Sorry, missed the part about "form for data entry". If that's the main point of the given page, then sure, focus on the first input is fine.
Your original comment was to use tabindex to skip search, menu bars, breadcrumbs, etc. and for that there are better options.
I'm saying tabindex=0 is naturally sorted wrt other naturally focusable elements. That matches the behavior of the <button> you're trying to emulate. I don't know what tabindex>0 has to do with this.
See this fiddle https://jsfiddle.net/483uqjnp/
(again, I do not condone building your own <button>, just pointing this out)
This is incorrect. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
That is correct. From your link: "tabindex="0" means that the element should be focusable in sequential keyboard navigation, after any positive tabindex values. The focus navigation order of these elements is defined by their order in the document source. "
Your link actually supports the comment you replied to.
tabindex=0 does sort naturally into the automatic tabindex order.
> So you are jumping through all the other tabindex elements
This part is correct (for elements with an explicit positive tabindex), which is why specifying an explicit positive tabindex is considered a code smell. If you don’t specify a tabindex on an element that’s focusable by default, it behaves like tabindex=0.
Try it:
Hey, it's me, the original author!
The issue isn't with tabindex=0 specifically, but fucking with tabindex in general. People go down that path, and start putting that shit on everything, like it's Frank's Red Hot.
And in my experience, the same folks who use div's instead of button's are the ones who don't know better and start throwing tabindex around.
"why do you need to listen for events at the document level?"
Not events generally, keydown events specifically, which do not fire on child elements of the document.
Hi, good premise overall, but there are just a lot of little things that are off.
- It only counts as "fucking with tabindex" if you give it a value that's not 0 or -1. You should give that specific disclaimer, because there are uses for tabindex=0 other than reimplementing <button>.
- Divs can definitely receive keydown events. If I go to an arbitrary web page, pick a div and run `div.tabIndex = 0;` + `div.addEventListener('keydown', console.log);`, I see those events coming through when I have the div keyboard-focused.
- "Run your code, somehow..." I think just calling `notRealBtn.click()` is the best option.
- Stupid but semi-interesting nitpick: 'keydown' is good for enter, but you should be listening to 'keyup' for the space bar. That's how real <button>s work anyway.
- The 'keyup' listener should call event.preventDefault() to prevent the default behavior of the space bar scrolling the page.
Not sure about that, MDN's example shows keydown being attached to an element.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/key...
> Not events generally, keydown events specifically, which do not fire on child elements of the document.
Are you sure? I have a 17 year old HTML tool written using plain, vanilla JavaScript where keydown on a child element seems to have been working as expected.
https://susam.net/quickqwerty.html
https://github.com/susam/quickqwerty/blob/1.2.0/quickqwerty....
Nice article, by the way!
I think that’s because it’s an input and not a div, so it can get focus. Im not sure whether tabindex is enough to make a div do that too, article suggests no
Related, because I don't always get to talk about buttons:
In my day job's shared library, we made a Clickable component that basically exists to abstract away the decision to use a button or an anchor tag, and resets the styles so both elements act the same way (both by default and when we apply styles to each).
We'd have a lot of confusion on the design side about button-as-design vs button-as-function and now we don't have to deal with that at all anymore.
And since the styling's been reset in a predictable way, it takes away one of the bigger reasons why people go to divs in the first place.
How does style reset make the elements work the same way? Links have vastly more features built into browsers than buttons
Makes them work the same way visually.
What an absurd intro.
> One of the weirdest “debates” I seem to perpetually have with framework-enthusiastic developers is whether or not a <div> is “just as good” as a <button>.
How does one's desire to use a framework have any impact on their ability to recognize the usefulness of a button? Did I miss something? Is there some portion of any of the major framework documenation that suggests it's better to use divs instead of buttons?
> Among the React crowd, and also among people who seem to enjoy HTMX, I see a lot this…
Lol This has been a problem since way before React hit the scene. And people not using frameworks aren't magically immune to using divs instead of buttons.
I started a SvelteKit project last year.
The compiler and preprocessors are very picky about accessibility issues like these.
It was annoying in the beginning, but I tried to follow the rules it set out. It feels very professional, and I’m thankful for the guidance.
What’s annoying now is when my coworkers thinks I’m making things unnecessarily complicated by trying to follow these rules and guidelines. A <div> with an onclick is so easy compared to a <button> with extra styling and sometimes calling preventDefault().
I have that experience when working with eslint-angular. Quite a few things I realised I hadn't been doing properly before.
I wonder if the "React Ry–thought-leader-guy" crowd (I love this not-so-subtle reference to Ryan Florence) preferred div over button because of the built-in styles that browsers used to apply to button elements.
That was a big part of "thought leader guy"'s argument in favor of divs, but not the only one.
This I've never gotten. It takes very little CSS to unstyle them!!
In today's world, yes. But as with a LOT of complaints about "web developers!!!!" the answer is usually "because of the way the web WAS."
Before IE became Edge (and maybe even in the earliest versions of Edge), there were certain styles and descendants that simply did not work on a <button> element, like Flexbox and Grid positioning. So, if your button had content like an icon, and you were trying to align it a certain way with the label, you simply couldn't use some features of CSS like you could with a <div>. It was a pain in the ass.
In the same vein, do you remember the period where some browsers wouldn't allow you to make a button look like a link using CSS, because they thought it might deceive people and thus be a security issue? I do.
And similarly when people complain about the complexities of webpack and bundlers in general, do you remember including the jQuery <script> tag on the page and then almost always needing to call `jQuery.noConflict()`? And how in those days, most people got even THAT wrong, because atomic <script async onload> behavior didn't work correctly in all browsers yet, so other code could actually run in between a <script> and its onload callback, meaning the jQuery.noConflict call was ineffective and something else could steal it? I remember. webpack fixed that by automatically scoping everything.
Nowadays, a lot of those workarounds are unnecessary (depends what browsers you're supporting). But it's not like there was never a reason for them.
A cool thing about a lot of the agency work I did early in my career is our audience was not actually the stated audience, it was the staff at the company that hired us. And one of the companies was on IE7. So yeah, I've nine-sliced a gif or two and done a few clearfixes in my time, haha. Never ran into a lot of these, but these weren't apps so much as brochures that happened to be online. Luckily enough we could control the environment pretty well to avoid actually needing noConflict() on jQuery.
But that was in 2011–'13 and things have gotten a bit easier since then and it's up to us to stay abreast of what's possible on the platform.
Yes, use the button element for buttons, and a for links.
But this is not a new problem or one "among the react crowd". Anecdotally I'd say it was more prevalent 10 or 15 years ago.
> But this is not a new problem or one "among the react crowd".
I'm really struggling to understand how the author connected using frameworks with using divs for clickable elements. And yes, this problem predated React and HTMX.
One of my biggest pet peeves is throwing shade at a certain tech or group of people who use that tech and the proceeding to demonstrate that they don't know anything about said tech.
Page makes no mention of <input type="button">. Are there any situations where that should be used?
From MDN:
> Note: While <input> elements of type button are still perfectly valid HTML, the newer <button> element is now the favored way to create buttons. Given that a <button>'s label text is inserted between the opening and closing tags, you can include HTML in the label, even images.
It's a thing from the times when <button> did not exist. Other use cases were for supporting IE. Today just use button.
I would literally never use <input type="submit|button"> for anything when the <button> element is an option, personally.
I have two annoyances with button, one is you probably want to restyle it, so it’s not no effort vs a div. Another is the warning that you can’t nest buttons. For better or worse, this is common
did everybody else get to the end of this article, and right-click inspect newsletter sign-up button to confirm that it was actually a <button>?
Just don't use animated gifs inbetween text.
The type of developers that would go with <div> in such cases are also those that know very, extremely little about semantic HTML and its purpose. Then if one is challenged about using React or other heavy-JS framework when you don't really have to, the discussion will be met with utter even surprise that someone out there is actually not using React.
The web is darn simple, but we are the place where it is made extremely over engineered and expensive for both companies (salaries and 2-3x more staff needed than necessary because of the bloat) and users of their products (in terms of payloads).
And yet JS-heavy frameworks seems to have the best job market.
Everything seems to be upside down.
> You shouldn’t, though! Seriously, just don’t fuck with focus order.
And here i am, wishing some would do just this. Especially creators of log in forms which make the “reveal password” button the next focus point instead of the “submit” button
is pressing tab twice instead of a single time really that big of an issue? Messing with focus order is definitely a bad idea, but they could also use less semantic html to skip the reveal password "button". For people who can only use keyboards, this would make it impossible to access that feature however
>is pressing tab twice instead of a single time really that big of an issue?
When you expect to press once, and end up doing the wrong thing because of that incorrect assumption, absolutely yes.
Having to think about it, at all, is the annoying part. Thinking == Anxiety.
For the love of god why can't people just use standard elements for their intended purpose.
Here's a tip for weirdo front-end devs that do this: You are not smarter than the people that created the spec.
it's not about being smarter. It's about being lazy. They don't wanna reset the default button css in order to perfectly match the figma they're being contracted to draw up. They simply don't care and the people contracting them don't have the knowledge to check if shortcuts were taken
Yeah I don't want to work with lazy people either. Shame.
Using a div instead of a button is just dumb.
However, I was tweaking my app today, after having read this article, and realized I'm using some anchor-links as buttons just because I wanted them to be styled exactly like a link.
Then I tried adding role="button" and of course I couldn't tab over to my link-button. So I added tabindex="0", just like the article tells you not to do, and that allowed me to tab over to it but I still couldn't activate it with spacebar.
So I finally caved and Googled "how do I make a button look just like a link" which brought me to this article: https://piccalil.li/blog/link-button/
And now it behaves properly. Yay a11y.
> This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users
Are you sure? Screen readers should be able to detect a div with a onclick as interactable, no? And if they can’t, that seems like an exceedingly simple fix. I’d be shocked if they can’t already detect onclick.
A click handler can be doing a lot of things that aren't much like a button, like letting you close a modal if you click outside of it, capturing mouse events for a game, or passively recording events for analytics. All that a click handler tells you is that there's some code that sometimes cares about some clicks somewhere inside that element.
Also a click handler on a div isn't going to do much for someone who isn't using a mouse, which would include a lot of screen reader users.
All of those seem like examples of things you’d want your screen reader to tell you about.
Sure.
What is the screen reader's plan for determining the purpose of the attached JavaScript?
I can confirm. I got decent with VoiceOver as the "guy on the team who gives a shit about this" (unofficial title) and yeah, it stinks. Also, you don't necessarily move through the page linearly with a screen reader; the rotor lets you jump between links, or jump to forms, or jump to navs. The more semantic your markup, the better it will be populated.
It's worth noting that VoiceOver is well-known for being a lot more lax than most other screen readers. Other options tend to be a lot more strict around standards and what they'll announce.
Weird side eye at htmx there?
And React. Using divs for buttons has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're using HTMX, React, or just plain Javascript.
Maybe they're a younger developer and weren't around pre-React, but the idea that using a div instead of a button for a clickable element is somehow new or only pertinent if you're using a framework makes me think the author is confused about these things work.
> This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users.
Is this actually true nowadays? Given that advice like this is often parrotted by people who don't actually use screen-reading software, I sometimes wonder if this is a situation where we've just been saying this and repeating this advice; meanwhile, screen readers have obviously become sophisticated enough to recognize that a div with an onclick handler on it is probably, you know, clickable and interactive.
There are well-defined standards for how the role of every element is determined, and according to those standards, adding an onclick handler does not change the role.
Screen readers also don't access the DOM directly, there's an extra abstraction layer. Browsers expose accessibility data to the appropriate OS API, and screen readers use the data exposed by the OS. There's too much variation as-is between different screen readers to be piling browser-specific behavior on top.
Maybe. But, again, these are all hypothetical ideas. Its been over 24 hours, and despite getting multiple responses, none of them are of the form: "I have used ScreenReaderSoftwareX, and on the latest version it does not interpret divs with an onclick handler has an interactable entity even though it is".
Screen reading software seems like it would have a very small market and I would expect it lags rather than keeps up with the ever changing ways people invent to build web pages.
Have you tested this? Often click handlers are on some non-interactive ancestor element, it is not a good heuristic for something being interactive itself or what name it should have. Sometimes the listener is on the body element and we just parse out the triggering element and do something.
No I haven't tested it, that's what I'm asking.
This piece of advice, to me, just feels like a piece of advice constantly repeated by a bunch of people, none of whom actually use the software for which the piece of advice is meant to benefit. That scares me; like we've all lost touch with the ground truth on this one; I'd love to re-sync with it, that's what I'm trying to do, I just don't have the first clue how to do it.
You can start with turning on eg switch controls on your OS, or the built in OS screen reader.
Also, a lot of professional accessibility devices by makers like Dynavox are expensive, so your best bet is seeing what documentation you can dig up.
This like WCAG guide accessibility standards, and coding to be in line with those is probably your best bet at achieving the goals of your website being accessible by assistive technology.
Everyone can guess what screen readers can do, everyone can also get a _basic_ idea of how they’ll actually work, but more often than not the people who will have the most experience are those with the least ability to affect change. Using elements for their intended purposes and coding to accessible standards is probably the most impactful way any of us as engineers can help ensure a smooth experience for the target audience.
Screen readers have and continue to lag in implementing standards designed specifically for accessibility, so I would say they are obviously not sophisticated enough.
(One example: https://heydonworks.com/article/aria-controls-is-poop)
div onclick is an abomination that should be eliminated
<3 the top-border
tbh, I've started to grow a disdain for front-end developers. It seems their favorite pastime is re-inventing the wheel, and every single time, they destroy something while gaining absolutely nothing.
Stop implementing date pickers when <input type="date"> exists.
Stop implementing smooth scrolling. Browsers already do it on their own, and your implementation will not work. Really, just don't mess with scrolling in general. Don't make scrolling have "momentum". Don't change scroll speed. One site I've been to goes out of its way to change how much a scroll wheel click scrolls the page. For fuck's sake, can someone explain to me why that would be a feature!? Why go out of your way to override a specific user preference!?
All this bullshit changes expected behaviors, reduces accessibility, reduces the performance of your web page (and therefore increases CPU and battery usage)...for no reason whatsoever.
This is enough of an issue that someone made https://dontfuckwithscroll.com/
> Stop implementing date pickers when <input type="date"> exists.
This still has issues in some browsers. With sites already having other methods from before this existed, there isn’t a good reason to move to it, when they’ll need the custom version for browsers that lack full support.
This is the issue with a lot of newer features.
> This still has issues in some browsers.
Your knowledge is out of date. <input type="date"> been implemented in nearly every browser since 2018, with the exception of Safari which was slow and didn't put it in until 2021, and Opera Mini which still doesn't have it at all, but who the hell uses Opera Mini?
https://caniuse.com/input-datetime
Safari and Firefox still show partial support. The features that are lacking may or may not be relevant for a particular use case.
I also can’t count on all my users to have the latest version of the browser, and don’t enjoy people messaging me telling my stuff doesn’t work.
[dead]
> 1. This element does not announce itself as an interactive element to screen reader users.
It has the "onclick" property set though. The other two points are pretty valid, however. It's a shame we don't have a proper "onsubmit" property or something like that. "Oninteract"?