They mostly publish static content: alerts, updates, reports, etc…
At most they might have a single page somewhere for submitting a payment or a simple form.
But because of this JS framework by default policy all their apps end up with extra complexity, extra build steps, and an awful amount of dependency maintenance.
Most of their sites could have been static HTML files on disk.
I'll never say Vue/React/Angular are "light" and I'll fully admit we give up some performance for DX (and UX) but it's a tradeoff I think is worth it (I understand if you don't agree).
In the same vein, I know cross-platform frameworks like Ionic/Quasar are nowhere near as good as native apps. That said the skill set you need (and dedication to actually embracing the platform idiosyncrasies) to make _good_ native apps is not cheap or easy. Cross-platform apps might not fit in as well and might be heavier but they allow fewer people to do more with less. Heck, I have a side-business that relies _heavily_ on apps and it would not exist if I couldn't write them in HTML/JS/CSS as much as that makes some people's stomachs turn.
I disagree, at least around here. Frontend developers with react/angular experience are a hot commodity and really hard to hire, yet just about anyone from any tech tech can knock out html and some minimal css.
Doesn't even make sense to me why anybody uses them.
You cant audit static sites (ones thing I don't like about having traditional linked libraries).
Why can’t you audit a static site? Seems very straight forward. We already audit static sites for accessibility (503 compliance).
Any resources you can point to? Seems like it would be a worthy effort to make other tools compliant.
Definitely something I want to learn about.