Re: ARIA APG - Vanilla JavaScript

Personally I am fine with examples which use JQuery or vanilla 
JavaScript. IMO the biggest obstacle is finding people to write the 
examples so whichever form they are most comfortable with I think we 
should accept. If someone wants to later go in and change all the JQuery 
examples to vanilla JavaScript they are welcome to spend their time 
doing so.
I would be very much against insisting that examples are in vanilla 
JavaScript if that prevents someone from contributing an example.

Regards,
James

On 3/26/2015 2:20 PM, Cynthia Shelly wrote:
>
> I use a lot of these examples as test cases, to make the browser 
> better.  Using jquery makes them less useful for that, because it 
> hides differences between browsers. Because of this, I would prefer 
> vanilla javascript examples, with descriptions of expected API and AT 
> behavior.
>
> *From:*Matthew King [mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:48 AM
> *To:* lwatson@paciellogroup.com
> *Cc:* 'Ian Pouncey'; 'WAI Protocols & Formats'
> *Subject:* 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 <mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>
> From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com 
> <mailto:lwatson@paciellogroup.com>>
> To: "'WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>,
> Cc: "'Ian Pouncey'" <ian@ipouncey.co.uk <mailto: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 2^nd 
> 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
>

-- 
Regards, James

Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment