Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Hayden Library - R690.W67 2019

Online Resource

Hayden Library - RA644.A25 R436 2018

Online Resource

Online Resource

Hayden Library - RA990.H65 D63 2018

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Hayden Library - RA395.A3 E546 2018

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Hayden Library - RT41.K44 2018

Hayden Library - R746.A2C5 2018

Online Resource

Hayden Library - R465.H47 2018

Online Resource

Online Resource

Hayden Library - RA452.M6 W43 2019

Hayden Library - R154.S66 M66 2018

Online Resource

Hayden Library - R489.N37 H33 2018

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Online Resource

Simulations suggest oganesson has extremely smooth electron and nucleon distributions

All seven worlds circling a red dwarf could be habitable, say astronomers

Research could help explain how cells organize into complex living systems

Breakthrough could lead to new type of energy source

Revamped accelerator will soon be smashing electrons and positrons together

Many portfolio websites include a list of previous clients to build trust from other potential customers. Reading what other people have said about a service or product is one way to garner support from visitors who have never heard about your company before. (Of course, this design technique only works if you have previous clients […]

Using CSS Shapes we can create experiences that we have never been able to create on the web before.

A Delhi court had on May 8 issued a non-bailable warrant against Jarwal and his close aide Kapil Nagar. 

As I write this, the world is sending its thoughts and prayers to our Muslim cousins. The Christchurch act of terrorism has once again reminded the world that white supremacy’s rise is very real, that its perpetrators are no longer on the fringes of society, but centered in our holiest places of worship. People are begging us to not share videos of the mass murder or the hateful manifesto that the white supremacist terrorist wrote. That’s what he wants: for his proverbial message of hate to be spread to the ends of the earth.

We live in a time where you can stream a mass murder and hate crime from the comfort of your home. Children can access these videos, too.

As I work through the pure pain, unsurprised, observing the toll on Muslim communities (as a non-Muslim, who matters least in this event), I think of the imperative role that our industry plays in this story.

At time of writing, YouTube has failed to ban and to remove this video. If you search for the video (which I strongly advise against), it still comes up with a mere content warning; the same content warning that appears for casually risqué content. You can bypass the warning and watch people get murdered. Even when the video gets flagged and taken down, new ones get uploaded.

Human moderators have to relive watching this trauma over and over again for unlivable wages. News outlets are embedding the video into their articles and publishing the hateful manifesto. Why? What does this accomplish?

I was taught in journalism class that media (photos, video, infographics, etc.) should be additive (a progressive enhancement, if you will) and provide something to the story for the reader that words cannot.

Is it necessary to show murder for our dear readers to understand the cruelty and finality of it? Do readers gain something more from watching fellow humans have their lives stolen from them? What psychological damage are we inflicting upon millions of people   and for what?

Who benefits?

The mass shooter(s) who had a message to accompany their mass murder. News outlets are thirsty for perverse clicks to garner more ad revenue. We, by way of our platforms, give agency and credence to these acts of violence, then pilfer profits from them. Tech is a money-making accomplice to these hate crimes.

Christchurch is just one example in an endless array where the tools and products we create are used as a vehicle for harm and for hate.

Facebook and the Cambridge Analytica scandal played a critical role in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The concept of “race realism,” which is essentially a term that white supremacists use to codify their false racist pseudo-science, was actively tested on Facebook’s platform to see how the term would sit with people who are ignorantly sitting on the fringes of white supremacy. Full-blown white supremacists don’t need this soft language. This is how radicalization works.

The strategies articulated in the above article are not new. Racist propaganda predates social media platforms. What we have to be mindful with is that we’re building smarter tools with power we don’t yet fully understand: you can now have an AI-generated human face. Our technology is accelerating at a frightening rate, a rate faster than our reflective understanding of its impact.

Combine the time-tested methods of spreading white supremacy, the power to manipulate perception through technology, and the magnitude and reach that has become democratized and anonymized.

We’re staring at our own reflection in the Black Mirror.

The right to speak versus the right to survive

Tech has proven time and time again that it voraciously protects first amendment rights above all else. (I will also take this opportunity to remind you that the first amendment of the United States offers protection to the people from the government abolishing free speech, not from private money-making corporations).

Evelyn Beatrice Hall writes in The Friends of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Fundamentally, Hall’s quote expresses that we must protect, possibly above all other freedoms, the freedom to say whatever we want to say. (Fun fact: The quote is often misattributed to Voltaire, but Hall actually wrote it to explain Voltaire’s ideologies.)

And the logical anchor here is sound: We must grant everyone else the same rights that we would like for ourselves. Former 99u editor Sean Blanda wrote a thoughtful piece on the “Other Side,” where he posits that we lack tolerance for people who don’t think like us, but that we must because we might one day be on the other side. I agree in theory.

But, what happens when a portion of the rights we grant to one group (let’s say, free speech to white supremacists) means the active oppression another group’s right (let’s say, every person of color’s right to live)?

James Baldwin expresses this idea with a clause, “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”

It would seem that we have a moral quandary where two sets of rights cannot coexist. Do we protect the privilege for all users to say what they want, or do we protect all users from hate? Because of this perceived moral quandary, tech has often opted out of this conversation altogether. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook, two of the biggest offenders, continue to allow hate speech to ensue with irregular to no regulation.

When explicitly asked about his platform as a free-speech platform and its consequence to privacy and safety, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said,

Dorsey and Twitter are most concerned about protecting expression and about not silencing people. In his mind, if he allows people to say whatever they want on his platform, he has succeeded. When asked about why he’s failed to implement AI to filter abuse like, say, Instagram had implemented, he said that he’s most concerned about being able to explain why the AI flagged something as abusive. Again, Dorsey protects the freedom of speech (and thus, the perpetrators of abuse) before the victims of abuse.

But he’s inconsistent about it. In a study by George Washington University comparing white nationalists and ISIS social media usage, Twitter’s freedom of speech was not granted to ISIS. Twitter suspended 1,100 accounts related to ISIS whereas it suspended only seven accounts related to Nazis, white nationalism, and white supremacy, despite the accounts having more than seven times the followers, and tweeting 25 times more than the ISIS accounts. Twitter here made a moral judgment that the fewer, less active, and less influential ISIS accounts were somehow not welcome on their platform, whereas the prolific and burgeoning Nazi and white supremacy accounts were.

So, Twitter has shown that it won’t protect free speech at all costs or for all users. We can only conclude that Twitter is either intentionally protecting white supremacy or simply doesn’t think it’s very dangerous. Regardless of which it is (I think I know), the outcome does not change the fact that white supremacy is running rampant on its platforms and many others.

Let’s brainwash ourselves for a moment and pretend like Twitter does want to support freedom of speech equitably and stays neutral and fair to complete this logical exercise: Going back to the dichotomy of rights example I provided earlier, where either the right to free speech or the right to safety and survival prevail, the rights and the power will fall into the hands of the dominant group or ideologue.

In case you are somehow unaware, the dominating ideologue, whether you’re a flagrant white supremacist or not, is white supremacy. White supremacy was baked into founding principles of the United States, the country where the majority of these platforms were founded and exist. (I am not suggesting that white supremacy doesn’t exist globally, as it does, evidenced most recently by the terrorist attack in Christchurch. I’m centering the conversation intentionally around the United States as it is my lived experience and where most of these companies operate.)

Facebook attempted to educate its team on white supremacy in order to address how to regulate free speech. A laugh-cry excerpt:

White nationalism is a softened synonym for white supremacy so that racists-lite can feel more comfortable with their transition into hate. White nationalism (a.k.a. white supremacy) by definition explicitly seeks to eradicate all people of color. So, Facebook should see white nationalist speech as exclusionary, and therefore a violation of their policies.

Regardless of what tech leaders like Dorsey or Facebook CEO Zuckerberg say or what mediocre and uninspired condolences they might offer, inaction is an action.

Companies that use terms and conditions or acceptable use policies to defend their inaction around hate speech are enabling and perpetuating white supremacy. Policies are written by humans to protect that group of human’s ideals. The message they use might be that they are protecting free speech, but hate speech is a form of free speech. So effectively, they are protecting hate speech. Well, as long as it’s for white supremacy and not the Islamic State.

Whether the motivation is fear (losing loyal Nazi customers and their sympathizers) or hate (because their CEO is a white supremacist), it does not change the impact: Hate speech is tolerated, enabled, and amplified by way of their platforms.

“That wasn’t our intent”

Product creators might be thinking, Hey, look, I don’t intentionally create a platform for hate. The way these features were used was never our intent.

Intent does not erase impact.

We cannot absolve ourselves of culpability merely because we failed to conceive such evil use cases when we built it. While we very well might not have created these platforms with the explicit intent to help Nazis or imagined it would be used to spread their hate, the reality is that our platforms are being used in this way.

As product creators, it is our responsibility to protect the safety of our users by stopping those that intend to or already cause them harm. Better yet, we ought to think of this before we build the platforms to prevent this in the first place.

The question to answer isn’t, “Have I made a place where people have the freedom to express themselves?” Instead we have to ask, “Have I made a place where everyone has the safety to exist?” If you have created a place where a dominant group can embroil and embolden hate against another group, you have failed to create a safe place. The foundations of hateful speech (beyond the psychological trauma of it) lead to events like Christchurch.

We must protect safety over speech.

The Domino Effect

This week, Slack banned 28 hate groups. What is most notable, to me, is that the groups did not break any parts of their Acceptable Use Policy. Slack issued a statement:

That’s it.

It is not illegal for tech companies like Slack to ban groups from using their proprietary software because it is a private company that can regulate users if they do not align with their vision as a company. Think of it as the “no shoes, no socks, no service” model, but for tech.

Slack simply decided that supporting the workplace collaboration of Nazis around efficient ways to evangelize white supremacy was probably not in line with their company directives around inclusion. I imagine Slack also considered how their employees of color most ill-affected by white supremacy would feel working for a company that supported it, actively or not.

What makes the Slack example so notable is that they acted swiftly and on their own accord. Slack chose the safety of all their users over the speech of some.

When caught with their enablement of white supremacy, some companies will only budge under pressure from activist groups, users, and employees.

PayPal finally banned hate groups after Charlottesville and after Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) explicitly called them out for enabling hate. SPLC had identified this fact for three years prior. PayPal had ignored them for all three years.

Unfortunately, taking these “stances” against something as clearly and viscerally wrong as white supremacy is rare for companies to do. The tech industry tolerates this inaction through unspoken agreements.

If Facebook doesn’t do anything about racist political propaganda, YouTube doesn’t do anything about PewDiePie, and Twitter doesn’t do anything about disproportionate abuse against Black women, it says to the smaller players in the industry that they don’t have to either.

The tech industry reacts to its peers. When there is disruption, as was the case with Airbnb, who screened and rejected any guests who they believed to be partaking in the Unite the Right Charlottesville rally, companies follow suit. GoDaddy cancelled Daily Stormer’s domain registration and Google did the same when they attempted migration.

If one company, like Slack or Airbnb, decides to do something about the role it’s going to play, it creates a perverse kind of FOMO for the rest: Fear of missing out of doing the right thing and standing on the right side of history.

Don’t have FOMO, do something

The type of activism at those companies all started with one individual. If you want to be part of the solution, I’ve gathered some places to start. The list is not exhaustive, and, as with all things, I recommend researching beyond this abridged summary.

1. Understand how white supremacy impacts you as an individual.
   Now, if you are a person of color, queer, disabled, or trans, it’s likely that you know this very intimately.

    

   If you are not any of those things, then you, as a majority person, need to understand how white supremacy protects you and works in your favor. It’s not easy work, it is uncomfortable and unfamiliar, but you have the most powerful tools to fix tech. The resources are aplenty, but my favorite abridged list:

   1. Seeing White podcast
   2. Ijeoma Oluo’s So you want to talk about race
   3. Reni Eddo-Lodge’s Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race (Very key read for UK folks)
   4. Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility
2. See where your company stands: Read your company’s policies like accepted use and privacy policies and find your CEO’s stance on safety and free speech.
   While these policies are baseline (and in the Slack example, sort of irrelevant), it’s important to known your company's track record. As an employee, your actions and decisions either uphold the ideologies behind the company or they don’t. Ask yourself if the company’s ideologies are worth upholding and whether they align with your own. Education will help you to flag if something contradicts those policies, or if the policies themselves allow for unethical activity.
3. Examine everything you do critically on an ongoing basis.
   You may feel your role is small or that your company is immune—maybe you are responsible for the maintenance of one small algorithm. But consider how that algorithm or similar ones can be exploited. Some key questions I ask myself:
   1. Who benefits from this? Who is harmed?
   2. How could this be used for harm?
   3. Who does this exclude? Who is missing?
   4. What does this protect? For whom? Does it do so equitably?
4. See something? Say something.
   If you believe that your company is creating something that is or can be used for harm, it is your responsibility to say something. Now, I’m not naïve to the fact that there is inherent risk in this. You might fear ostracization or termination. You need to protect yourself first. But you also need to do something.
   1. Find someone who you trust who might be at less risk. Maybe if you’re a nonbinary person of color, find a white cis man who is willing to speak up. Maybe if you’re a white man who is new to the company, find a white man who has more seniority or tenure. But also, consider how you have so much more relative privilege compared to most other people and that you might be the safest option.
   2. Unionize. Find peers who might feel the same way and write a collective statement.
   3. Get someone influential outside of the company (if knowledge is public) to say something.
5. Listen to concerns, no matter how small, particularly if they’re coming from the most endangered groups.
   If your user or peer feels unsafe, you need to understand why. People often feel like small things can be overlooked, as their initial impact might be less, but it is in the smallest cracks that hate can grow. Allowing one insensitive comment about race is still allowing hate speech. If someone, particularly someone in a marginalized group, brings up a concern, you need to do your due diligence to listen to it and to understand its impact.

I cannot emphasize this last point enough.

What I say today is not new. Versions of this article have been written before. Women of color like me have voiced similar concerns not only in writing, but in design reviews, in closed door meetings to key stakeholders, in Slack DMs. We’ve blown our whistles.

But here is the power of white supremacy.

White supremacy is so ingrained in every single aspect of how this nation was built, how our corporations function, and who is in control. If you are not convinced of this, you are not paying attention or intentionally ignoring the truth.

Queer, Muslim, disabled, trans women and nonbinary folks of color — the marginalized groups most impacted by this — are the ones who are voicing these concerns most voraciously. Speaking up requires us to enter the spotlight and outside of safety—we take a risk and are not heard.

The silencing of our voices is one of many effective tools of white supremacy. Our silencing lives within every microaggression, each time we’re talked over, or not invited to partake in key decisions.

In tech, I feel I am a canary in a coal mine. I have sung my song to warn the miners of the toxicity. My sensitivity to it is heightened, because of my existence.

But the miners look at me and tell me that my lived experience is false. It does not align with their narrative as humans. They don’t understand why I sing.

If the people at the highest echelons of the tech industry—the white, male CEOs in power—fail to listen to its most marginalized people—the queer, disabled, trans, people of color—the fate of the canaries will too become the fate of the miners.

By the numbers, JavaScript is a performance liability. If the trend persists, the median page will be shipping at least 400 KB of it before too long, and that’s merely what’s transferred. Like other text-based resources, JavaScript is almost always served compressed—but that might be the only thing we’re getting consistently right in its delivery.

Unfortunately, while reducing resource transfer time is a big part of that whole performance thing, compression has no effect on how long browsers take to process a script once it arrives in its entirety. If a server sends 400 KB of compressed JavaScript, the actual amount browsers have to process after decompression is north of a megabyte. How well devices cope with these heavy workloads depends, well, on the device. Much has been written about how adept various devices are at processing lots of JavaScript, but the truth is, the amount of time it takes to process even a trivial amount of it varies greatly between devices.

Take, for example, this throwaway project of mine, which serves around 23 KB of uncompressed JavaScript. On a mid-2017 MacBook Pro, Chrome chews through this comparably tiny payload in about 25 ms. On a Nokia 2 Android phone, however, that figure balloons to around 190 ms. That’s not an insignificant amount of time, but in either case, the page gets interactive reasonably fast.

Now for the big question: how do you think that little Nokia 2 does on an average page? It chokes. Even on a fast connection, browsing the web on it is an exercise in patience as JavaScript-laden web pages brick it for considerable stretches of time.

While devices and the networks they navigate the web on are largely improving, we’re eating those gains as trends suggest. We need to use JavaScript responsibly. That begins with understanding what we’re building as well as how we’re building it.

The mindset of “sites” versus “apps”

Nomenclature can be strange in that we sometimes loosely identify things with terms that are inaccurate, yet their meanings are implicitly understood by everyone. Sometimes we overload the term “bee” to also mean “wasp”, even though the differences between bees and wasps are substantial. Those differences can motivate you to deal with each one differently. For instance, we’ll want to destroy a wasp nest, but because bees are highly beneficial and vulnerable insects, we may opt to relocate them.

We can be just as fast and loose in interchanging the terms “website” and “web app”. The differences between them are less clear than those between yellowjackets and honeybees, but conflating them can bring about painful outcomes. The pain comes in the affordances we allow ourselves when something is merely a “website” versus a fully-featured “web app.” If you’re making an informational website for a business, you’re less likely to lean on a powerful framework to manage changes in the DOM or implement client-side routing—at least, I hope. Using tools so ill-suited for the task would not only be a detriment to the people who use that site but arguably less productive.

When we build a web app, though, look out. We’re installing packages which usher in hundreds—if not thousands—of dependencies, some of which we’re not sure are even safe. We’re also writing complicated configurations for module bundlers. In this frenzied, yet ubiquitous, sort of dev environment, it takes knowledge and vigilance to ensure what gets built is fast and accessible. If you doubt this, run npm ls --prod in your project’s root directory and see if you recognize everything in that list. Even if you do, that doesn’t account for third party scripts—of which I’m sure your site has at least a few.

What we tend to forget is that the environment websites and web apps occupy is one and the same. Both are subject to the same environmental pressures that the large gradient of networks and devices impose. Those constraints don’t suddenly vanish when we decide to call what we build “apps”, nor do our users’ phones gain magical new powers when we do so.

It’s our responsibility to evaluate who uses what we make, and accept that the conditions under which they access the internet can be different than what we’ve assumed. We need to know the purpose we’re trying to serve, and only then can we build something that admirably serves that purpose—even if it isn’t exciting to build.

That means reassessing our reliance on JavaScript and how the use of it—particularly to the exclusion of HTML and CSS—can tempt us to adopt unsustainable patterns which harm performance and accessibility.

Don’t let frameworks force you into unsustainable patterns

I’ve been witness to some strange discoveries in codebases when working with teams that depend on frameworks to help them be highly productive. One characteristic common among many of them is that poor accessibility and performance patterns often result. Take the React component below, for example:

import React, { Component } from "react";
import { validateEmail } from "helpers/validation";

class SignupForm extends Component {
  constructor (props) {
    super(props);

    this.handleSubmit = this.handleSubmit.bind(this);
    this.updateEmail = this.updateEmail.bind(this);
    this.state.email = "";
  }

  updateEmail (event) {
    this.setState({
      email: event.target.value
    });
  }

  handleSubmit () {
    // If the email checks out, submit
    if (validateEmail(this.state.email)) {
      // ...
    }
  }

  render () {
    return (
      

        Enter your email:
        
        Sign Up
      
    );
  }
}

There are some notable accessibility issues here:

1. A form that doesn’t use a <form> element is not a form. Indeed, you could paper over this by specifying role="form" in the parent <div>, but if you’re building a form—and this sure looks like one—use a <form> element with the proper action and method attributes. The action attribute is crucial, as it ensures the form will still do something in the absence of JavaScript—provided the component is server-rendered, of course.
2. A <span> is not a substitute for a <label> element, which provides accessibility benefits <span>s don’t.
3. If we intend to do something on the client side prior to submitting a form, then we should move the action bound to the <button> element's onClick handler to the <form> element’s onSubmit handler.
4. Incidentally, why use JavaScript to validate an email address when HTML5 offers form validation controls in almost every browser back to IE 10? There’s an opportunity here to rely on the browser and use an appropriate input type, as well as the required attribute—but be aware that getting this to work right with screen readers takes a little know-how.
5. While not an accessibility issue, this component doesn't rely on any state or lifecycle methods, which means it can be refactored into a stateless functional component, which uses considerably less JavaScript than a full-fledged React component.

Knowing these things, we can refactor this component:

import React from "react";

const SignupForm = props => {
  const handleSubmit = event => {
    // Needed in case we're sending data to the server XHR-style
    // (but will still work if server-rendered with JS disabled).
    event.preventDefault();

    // Carry on...
  };
  
  return (
    <form method="POST" action="/signup" onSubmit={handleSubmit}>
      <label for="email" class="email-label">Enter your email:</label>
      <input type="email" id="email" required />
      <button>Sign Up</button>
    </form>
  );
};

Not only is this component now more accessible, but it also uses less JavaScript. In a world that’s drowning in JavaScript, deleting lines of it should feel downright therapeutic. The browser gives us so much for free, and we should try to take advantage of that as often as possible.

This is not to say that inaccessible patterns occur only when frameworks are used, but rather that a sole preference for JavaScript will eventually surface gaps in our understanding of HTML and CSS. These knowledge gaps will often result in mistakes we may not even be aware of. Frameworks can be useful tools that increase our productivity, but continuing education in core web technologies is essential to creating usable experiences, no matter what tools we choose to use.

Rely on the web platform and you’ll go far, fast

While we’re on the subject of frameworks, it must be said that the web platform is a formidable framework of its own. As the previous section showed, we’re better off when we can rely on established markup patterns and browser features. The alternative is to reinvent them, and invite all the pain such endeavors all but guarantee us, or worse: merely assume that the author of every JavaScript package we install has solved the problem comprehensively and thoughtfully.

SINGLE PAGE APPLICATIONS

One of the tradeoffs developers are quick to make is to adopt the single page application (SPA) model, even if it’s not a fit for the project. Yes, you do gain better perceived performance with the client-side routing of an SPA, but what do you lose? The browser’s own navigation functionality—albeit synchronous—provides a slew of benefits. For one, history is managed according to a complex specification. Users without JavaScript—be it by their own choice or not—won’t lose access altogether. For SPAs to remain available when JavaScript is not, server-side rendering suddenly becomes a thing you have to consider.

Accessibility is also harmed if a client-side router fails to let people know what content on the page has changed. This can leave those reliant on assistive technology to suss out what changes have occurred on the page, which can be an arduous task.

Then there’s our old nemesis: overhead. Some client-side routers are very small, but when you start with React, a compatible router, and possibly even a state management library, you’re accepting that there’s a certain amount of code you can never optimize away—approximately 135 KB in this case. Carefully consider what you’re building and whether a client side router is worth the tradeoffs you’ll inevitably make. Typically, you’re better off without one.

If you’re concerned about the perceived navigation performance, you could lean on rel=prefetch to speculatively fetch documents on the same origin. This has a dramatic effect on improving perceived loading performance of pages, as the document is immediately available in the cache. Because prefetches are done at a low priority, they’re also less likely to contend with critical resources for bandwidth.

The primary drawback with link prefetching is that you need to be aware that it can be potentially wasteful. Quicklink, a tiny link prefetching script from Google, mitigates this somewhat by checking if the current client is on a slow connection—or has data saver mode enabled—and avoids prefetching links on cross-origins by default.

Service workers are also hugely beneficial to perceived performance for returning users, whether we use client side routing or not—provided you know the ropes. When we precache routes with a service worker, we get many of the same benefits as link prefetching, but with a much greater degree of control over requests and responses. Whether you think of your site as an “app” or not, adding a service worker to it is perhaps one of the most responsible uses of JavaScript that exists today.

JAVASCRIPT ISN’T THE SOLUTION TO YOUR LAYOUT WOES

If we’re installing a package to solve a layout problem, proceed with caution and ask “what am I trying to accomplish?” CSS is designed to do this job, and requires no abstractions to use effectively. Most layout issues JavaScript packages attempt to solve, like box placement, alignment, and sizing, managing text overflow, and even entire layout systems, are solvable with CSS today. Modern layout engines like Flexbox and Grid are supported well enough that we shouldn’t need to start a project with any layout framework. CSS is the framework. When we have feature queries, progressively enhancing layouts to adopt new layout engines is suddenly not so hard.

/* Your mobile-first, non-CSS grid styles goes here */

/* The @supports rule below is ignored by browsers that don't
   support CSS grid, _or_ don't support @supports. */
@supports (display: grid) {
  /* Larger screen layout */
  @media (min-width: 40em) {
    /* Your progressively enhanced grid layout styles go here */
  }
}

Using JavaScript solutions for layout and presentations problems is not new. It was something we did when we lied to ourselves in 2009 that every website had to look in IE6 exactly as it did in the more capable browsers of that time. If we’re still developing websites to look the same in every browser in 2019, we should reassess our development goals. There will always be some browser we’ll have to support that can’t do everything those modern, evergreen browsers can. Total visual parity on all platforms is not only a pursuit made in vain, it’s the principal foe of progressive enhancement.

I’m not here to kill JavaScript

Make no mistake, I have no ill will toward JavaScript. It’s given me a career and—if I’m being honest with myself—a source of enjoyment for over a decade. Like any long-term relationship, I learn more about it the more time I spend with it. It’s a mature, feature-rich language that only gets more capable and elegant with every passing year.

Yet, there are times when I feel like JavaScript and I are at odds. I am critical of JavaScript. Or maybe more accurately, I’m critical of how we’ve developed a tendency to view it as a first resort to building for the web. As I pick apart yet another bundle not unlike a tangled ball of Christmas tree lights, it’s become clear that the web is drunk on JavaScript. We reach for it for almost everything, even when the occasion doesn’t call for it. Sometimes I wonder how vicious the hangover will be.

In a series of articles to follow, I’ll be giving more practical advice to follow to stem the encroaching tide of excessive JavaScript and how we can wrangle it so that what we build for the web is usable—or at least more so—for everyone everywhere. Some of the advice will be preventative. Some will be mitigating “hair of the dog” measures. In either case, the outcomes will hopefully be the same. I believe that we all love the web and want to do right by it, but I want us to think about how to make it more resilient and inclusive for all.

Accessibility can be tricky. There are plenty of conditions to take into consideration, and many technical limitations and weird exceptions that make it quite hard to master for most designers and developers.

I never considered myself an accessibility expert, but I took great pride in making my projects Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) compliant…ish. They would pass most automated tests, show perfectly in the accessibility tree, and work quite well with keyboard navigation. I would even try (and fail) to use a screen reader every now and then.

But life would give me a lesson I would probably never learn otherwise: last October, my abled life took a drastic change—I started to feel extremely dizzy, with a constant sensation of falling or spinning to the right. I was suffering from a bad case of vertigo caused by labyrinthitis that made it impossible to get anything done.

Vertigo can have a wide range of causes, the most common being a viral infection or tiny calcium crystal free floating in the inner ear, which is pretty much our body’s accelerometer. Any disruption in there sends the brain confusing signals about the body’s position, which causes really heavy nausea, dizziness, and headaches. If you’ve ever felt seasick, it’s quite a similar vibe. If not, think about that feeling when you just get off a rollercoaster…it’s like that, only all day long.

For most people, vertigo is something they’ll suffer just once in a lifetime, and it normally goes away in a week or two. Incidence is really high, with some estimates claiming that up to 40% of the population suffers vertigo at least once in their lifetime. Some people live all their lives with it (or with similar symptoms caused by a range of diseases and syndromes grouped under the umbrella term of vestibular disorders), with 4% of US adults reporting chronic problems with balance, and an additional 1.1% reporting chronic dizziness, according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

In my case, it was a little over a month. Here’s what I learned while going through it.

Slants can trigger vestibular symptoms

It all started as I was out for my daily jog. I felt slightly dizzy, then suddenly my vision got totally distorted. Everything appeared further away, like looking at a fun house’s distortion mirror. I stumbled back home and rested; at that moment I believed I might have over-exercised, and that hydration, food, and rest were all I needed. Time would prove me wrong.

What I later learned was that experiencing vertigo is a constant war between one of your inner ears telling the brain “everything is fine, we’re level and still” and the other ear shouting “oh my God, we’re falling, we’re falling!!!” Visual stimuli can act as an intermediary, supporting one ear’s message or the other’s. Vertigo can also work in the opposite way, with the dizziness interfering with your vision.

I quickly found that when symptoms peaked, staring at a distant object would ease the falling sensation somewhat.

In the same fashion, some visual stimuli would worsen it.

Vertical slants were a big offender in that sense. For instance, looking at a subtle vertical slant (the kind that you’d have to look at twice to make sure it’s not perfectly vertical) on a webpage would instantly trigger symptoms for me. Whether it was a page-long slant used to create some interest beside text or a tiny decoration to mark active tabs, looking at anything with slight slants would instantly send me into the rollercoaster.

Horizontal slants (whatever the degree) and harder vertical slants wouldn’t cause these issues.

My best guess is that slight vertical slants can look like forced perspective and therefore reinforce the falling-from-height sensation, so I would recommend avoiding vertical slants if you can, or make them super obvious. A slight slant looks like perspective, a harder one looks like a triangle.

Target size matters (even on mouse-assisted devices)

After a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, some tests to discard neurological conditions, and other treatments that proved ineffective, I was prescribed Cinnarizine.

Cinnarizine is a calcium channel blocker—to put it simply, it prevents the malfunctioning inner ear “accelerometer” from sending incorrect info to the brain. 
And it worked wonders. After ten days of being barely able to get out of bed, I was finally getting something closer to my normal life. I would still feel dizzy all the time, with some peaks throughout the day, but for the most part, it was much easier.

At this point, I was finally able to use the computer (but still unable to produce any code at all). To make the best of it, I set on a mission to self-experiment on accessibility for vestibular disorders. In testing, I found that one of the first things that struck me was that I would always miss targets (links and buttons).

I’m from the generation that grew up with desktop computers, so using a mouse is second nature. The pointer is pretty much an extension of my mind, as it is for many who use it regularly. But while Cinnarizine helped with the dizziness, it has a common side effect of negatively impacting coordination and fine motor skills (it is recommended not to drive or operate machinery while under treatment). It was not a surprise when I realized it would be much harder to get the pointer to do what I intended.

The common behavior would be: moving the pointer past the link I intended to click, clicking before reaching it at all, or having to try multiple times to click on smaller targets.

Success Criterion 2.5.5 Target Size (Level AAA) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)’s WCAG recommends bigger target sizes so users can activate them easily. The obvious reason for this is that it’s harder to pinpoint targets on smaller screens with coarser inputs (i.e., touchscreens of mobile devices). A fairly common practice for developers is to set bigger target sizes for smaller viewport widths (assuming that control challenges are only touch-related), while neglecting the issue on big screens expected to be used with mouse input. I know I’m guilty of that myself.

Instead of targeting this behavior for just smaller screen sizes, there are plenty of reasons to create larger target sizes on all devices: it will benefit users with limited vision (when text is scaled up accordingly and colors are of sufficient contrast), users with mobility impairments such as hand tremors, and of course, users with difficulty with fine motor skills.

Font size and spacing

Even while “enjoying” the ease of symptoms provided by the treatment, reading anything still proved to be a challenge for the following three weeks.

I was completely unable to use mobile devices while suffering vertigo due to the smaller font sizes and spacing, so I was forced to use my desktop computer for everything.

I can say I was experiencing something similar to users with mild forms of dyslexia or attention disorders: whenever I got to a website that didn’t follow good font styling, I would find myself reading the same line over and over again.

This proves once again that accessibility is intersectional: when we improve things for a particular purpose it usually benefits users with other challenges as well. I used to believe recommendations on font styles were mostly intended for the nearsighted and those who have dyslexia. Turns out they are also critical for those with vertigo, and even for those with some cognitive differences. At the end of the day, everybody benefits from better readability.

Some actions you can take to improve readability are:

• Keep line height to at least 1.5 times the font size (i.e., line-height: 1.5).
• Set the spacing between paragraphs to at least 2.0 times the font size. We can do this by adjusting the margins using relative units such as em.
• Letter spacing should be at least 0.12 times the font size. We can adjust this by using the letter-spacing CSS property, perhaps setting it in a relative unit.
• Make sure to have good contrast between text and its background.
• Keep font-weight at a reasonable level for the given font-family. Some fonts have thin strokes that make them harder to read. When using thinner fonts, try to improve contrast and font size accordingly, even more than what WCAG would suggest.
• Choose fonts that are easy to read. There has been a large and still inconclusive debate on which font styles are better for users, but one thing I can say for sure is that popular fonts (as in fonts that the user might be already familiar with) are generally the least challenging for users with reading issues.

WCAG recommendations on text are fairly clear and fortunately are the most commonly implemented of recommendations, but even they can still fall short sometimes. So, better to follow specific guides on accessible text and your best judgement. Passing automated tests does not guarantee actual accessibility.

Another issue on which my experience with vertigo proved to be similar to that of people with dyslexia and attention disorders was how hard it was for me to keep my attention in just one place. In that sense…

Animations are bad (and parallax is pure evil)

Val Head has already covered visually-triggered vestibular disorders in an outstanding article, so I would recommend giving it a good read if you haven’t already.

To summarize, animations can trigger nausea, dizziness, and headaches in some users, so we should use them purposely and responsibly.

While most animations did not trigger my symptoms, parallax scrolling did. I’d never been a fan of parallax to begin with, as I found it confusing. And when you’re experiencing vertigo, the issues introduced by parallax scrolling compound.

Really, there are no words to describe just how bad a simple parallax effect, scrolljacking, or even background-attachment: fixed would make me feel. I would rather jump on one of those 20-G centrifuges astronauts use than look at a website with parallax scrolling.

Every time I encountered it, I would put the bucket beside me to good use and be forced to lie in bed for hours as I felt the room spinning around me, and no meds could get me out of it. It was THAT bad.

Though normal animations did not trigger a reaction as severe, they still posed a big problem. The extreme, conscious, focused effort it took to read would make it such that anything moving on the screen would instantly break my focus, and force me to start the paragraph all over. And I mean anything.

I would constantly find myself reading a website only to have the typical collapsing navigation bar on scroll distract me just enough that I’d totally lose count of where I was at. Autoplaying carousels were so annoying I would delete them using dev tools as soon as they showed up. Background videos would make me get out of the website desperately.

Over time I started using mouse selection as a pointer; a visual indication of what I’d already read so I could get back to it whenever something distracted me. Then I tried custom stylesheets to disable transforms and animations whenever possible, but that also meant many websites having critical elements not appear at all, as they were implemented to start off-screen or otherwise invisible, and show up on scroll.

Of course, deleting stuff via dev tools or using custom stylesheets is not something we can expect 99.99% of our users to even know about.

So if anything, consider reducing animations to a minimum. Provide users with controls to turn off non-essential animations (WCAG 2.2.3 Animation from Interactions) and to pause, stop, or hide them (WCAG 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide). Implement animations and transitions in such a way that if the user disables them, critical elements still display.

And be extra careful with parallax: my recommendation is to, at the very least, try limiting its use to the header (“hero”) only, and be mindful of getting a smooth, realistic parallax experience. My vertigo self would have said, “just don’t freaking use parallax. Never. EVER.” But I guess that might be a hard idea to sell to stakeholders and designers.

Also consider learning how to use the prefers-reduced-motion feature query. This is a newer addition to the specs (it’s part of the Media Queries Level 5 module , which is at an early Editor’s Draft stage) that allows authors to apply selective styling depending on whether the user has requested the system to minimize the use of animations. OS and browser support for it is still quite limited, but the day will come when we will set any moving thing inside a query for when the user has no-preference, blocking animations from those who choose reduce.

After about a week of wrestling websites to provide a static experience, I remembered something that would prove to be my biggest ally while the vertigo lasted:

Reader mode

Some browsers include a “reader mode” that strips the content from any styling choices, isolates it from any distraction, and provides a perfect WCAG compliant layout for the text to maximize readability.

It is extremely helpful to provide a clear and consistent reading experience throughout multiple websites, especially for users with any kind of reading impairment.

I have to confess: before experiencing my vestibular disorder, I had never used Reader Mode (the formal name varies in browsers) or even checked if my projects were compatible with it. I didn’t even think it was such a useful feature, as a quick search for “reader mode” actually returned quite a few threads by users asking how to disable it or how to take the button for it out of Firefox’s address bar. (It seems some people are unwittingly activating it…perhaps the icon is not clear enough.)

Displaying the button to access Reader Mode is toggled by browser heuristics, which are based on the use (or not) of semantic tags in a page’s HTML. Unfortunately this meant not all websites provided such a “luxury.”

I really wish I wouldn’t have to say this in 2019…but please, please use semantic tags. Correct conversational semantics allow your website to be displayed in Reader Mode, and provide a better experience for users of screen readers. Again, accessibility is intersectional.

Reader Mode proved to be extremely useful while my vertigo lasted. But there was something even better:

Dark color schemes

By the fourth week, I started feeling mostly fine. I opened Visual Studio Code to try to get back to work. In doing so, it served me well to find one more revelation: a light-text-on-dark-background scheme was SO much easier for me to read. (Though I still was not able to return to work at this time.)

I was quite surprised, as I had always preferred light mode with dark-text-on-light-background for reading, and dark mode, with light-text-on-dark for coding. I didn’t know at the time that I was suffering from photophobia (which is a sensitivity to light), which was one of the reasons I found it hard to read on my desktop and to use my mobile device at all.

As far as I know, photophobia is not a common symptom of vestibular disorders, but there are many conditions that will trigger it, so it’s worth looking into for our projects’ accessibility.

CSS is also planning a media query to switch color schemes. Known as prefers-color-scheme, it allows applying styles based on the user’s stated preference for dark or light theming. It’s also part of the Media Queries Level 5 spec, and at the time of writing this article it’s only available in Safari Technology Preview, with Mozilla planning to ship it in the upcoming Firefox 67. Luckily there’s a PostCSS plugin that allows us to use it in most modern browsers by turning prefers-color-schemequeries into color-index queries, which have much better support.

If PostCSS is not your cup of tea, or for whatever reason you cannot use that approach to automate switching color schemes to a user’s preference, try at least to provide a theming option in your app’s configuration. Theming has become extremely simple since the release of CSS Custom Properties, so implementing this sort of switch is relatively easy and will greatly benefit anyone experiencing photophobia.

Moving on

After a month and some days, the vertigo disappeared completely, and I was able to return to work without needing any meds or further treatment. It should stay that way, as for most people it’s a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.

I went back to my abled life, but the experience changed my mindset for good.

As I said before, I always cared for making my projects compatible for people using keyboard navigation and screen readers. But I learned the hard way that there are plenty of “invisible conditions” that are just as important to take into consideration: vestibular disorders, cognitive differences, dyslexia, and color blindness, just to name a few. I was totally neglecting those most of the time, barely addressing the issues in order to pass automated tests, which means I was unintentionally annoying some users by making websites inaccessible to them.

After my experience with vertigo, I’ve turned to an accessibility-first approach to design and development. Now I ask myself, “am I leaving anyone behind with this decision?,” before dropping a single line of code. Accessibility should never be an afterthought.

Making sure my projects work from the start for those with difficulties also improves the experience for everyone else. Think about how improving text styles for users with dyslexia, vertigo, or visual problems improves readability for all users, or how being able to control animations or choose a color scheme can be critical for users with attention disorders and photophobia, respectively, while also a nice feature for everybody.

It also turned my workflow into a much smoother development experience, as addressing accessibility issues from the beginning can mean a slower start, but it’s also much easier and faster than trying to fix broken accessibility afterwards.

I hope that by sharing my personal experience with vertigo, I’ve illustrated how we can all design and develop a better web for everybody. Remember, we’re all just temporarily abled.