Hacker News Reader

Comment by notahacker | Hacker News Reader

Sure, but that's only easy if you choose to ignore the 1 in 10 users that it doesn't work for, which is too many for most real world use cases, especially for something as fundamental as the layout of the page.

View on HN

Not everyone needs to have the same experience. A common pattern is to make a responsive layout where CSS Grid isn't used on the smallest screens and that's the default. Many of the browsers that don't support CSS Grid are mobile ones anyway but even in a desktop browser they can get a not-ideal but usable layout.

you are right, and that is a great solution if you don't care about offering the actual experience to all users. If the original problem you need to solve is "using css to style a website so all users have the expected experience" then you need more than 5 lines of css.

"The" actual experience is a myth, all users are not going to have the same experience no matter what, that's one of the points behind responsive design. What I was presenting was an alternative to ignoring CSS Grid because someone thinks it doesn't have sufficient browser adoption.

Those 1 in 10 users don't provide enough revenue to warrant doubling our front end budget to support every polyfill, every workaround for every non-polyfillable thing, and the vast quantities of extra support they require.

If they do in your case, though, I understand.

So I guess following your point, accessibility should not be a thing, on or offline.

You're limiting 'accessibility' to the current 'boil the ocean' approach pushed by the accessibility industry, which has a perverse profit incentive in the problem not being solved.

Accessibility is better addressed in the client than in the server.

True. Grid still has a long way to go. Flexbox works as a nice alternative in the meanwhile. However, the semantics of the flex is too confusing and cumbersome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com