Re: ARIA APG - Vanilla JavaScript

Léonie, thank you for this well researched note. I agree that we should 
revisit this decision.

However, I want to clarify the prior taskforce decision. It was not that 
all examples would use jQuery but rather that utilizing jQuery in examples 
for the 2 main purposes you cited is acceptable.

I am very interested in hearing view points from people on this list who 
are not regular participants in the APG taskforce calls. And, to set the 
context for feedback, in the new APG, the examples take on much greater 
importance. The current APG TF is making the patterns and examples of 
those patterns the main feature or core of the APG. We believe that is how 
most members of the APG audience want to learn what the APG has to offer. 
So, the decision of whether or not to permit the use of JS libraries in 
the APG examples is very important.

Matt King
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement 
Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com



From:   Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
To:     "'WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, 
Cc:     "'Ian Pouncey'" <ian@ipouncey.co.uk>
Date:   03/26/2015 04:53 AM
Subject:        ARIA APG - Vanilla JavaScript



Hello,
 
There has been some discussion about whether we should use jQuery or 
vanilla JavaScript for the APG 1.1 examples. On the TF call of 2nd 
February it was decided we should use jQuery, however neither of the draft 
examples we have so far use a JavaScript library at all.
 
This seems like a good opportunity to revisit the discussion. TLDR: I 
think there’s a good case to be made for using vanilla JavaScript and not 
a JavaScript library for the APG examples.
 
jQuery (and other JavaScript libraries) have two main purposes:
 
1.       Fix cross-browser JavaScript inconsistencies.
2.       Provide easy access to features that are complicated to write in 
JavaScript.
 
Since IE9 the number of cross-browser inconsistencies has reduced 
dramatically, and many features of jQuery are now features of JavaScript. 
For example, the following things are effectively equivalent:
 
// jQuery
var getThings = $('#id .class element');
 
and
 
// JavaScript
var getThings = document.getQuerySelectorAll('#id .class element');
 
More examples are available here:
http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ 
 
The use of JavaScript libraries is in decline. jQuery remains the most 
popular library in use, but with each new version numbers are diminishing. 
Of the 50 million sites using jQuery, only 1.5 million use jQuery 1.9.x, 
and 250,000 use jQuery 2.x. jQuery 2.x is used on fewer sites than 
MooTools, Script.Aculo.us (last updated in 2010), Prototype, and YUI (no 
longer actively maintained) [2].
 
Several notable websites do not use jQuery (including Facebook, Wikipedia, 
YouTube and Yahoo!). Nearly 34% of websites use no large JavaScript 
library at all [3].
 
Example JavaScript (vanilla) can be used in any context (whether a 
framework is being used to build an application or not). This means 
examples written in JavaScript can be used by anyone.
 
Using vanilla JavaScript will also make it easier for people to learn the 
fundamentals of accessible widget functionality. It might be a little more 
verbose to read/write, but it isn’t abstracted into a library – and there 
is no requirement for anyone to learn a particular library in order to 
understand the examples either.
 
So in order to maximise usefulness, not place learning overheads on 
developers, and in light of the general trend towards no libraries, I 
think we should look again  at using vanilla JavaScript for the APG 1.1 
examples.
 
Léonie.
 
[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/02/02-aria-apg-minutes.html

[2] http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/javascript-library

[3] 
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/javascript_library/all 
 
 
-- 
Léonie Watson Senior accessibility engineer, TPG
@LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup PacielloGroup.com