What does neglected HTML look like? Here’s an example of the markup I found on a news site just yesterday. There’s a bit of text, a few links, and a few images. But mostly it’s
<div class="block_wrapper"> <div class="block_content"> <div class="box"> <div id="block1242235"> <div class="column"> <div class="column_content"> <a class="close" href="#"><i class="fa"></i></a> </div> <div class="btn account_login"></div> Some text <span>more text</span> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>
spans, why do we use them so much?
While I find tracking scripts completely inexcusable, I do understand why people write HTML like the above. As developers, we like to use
spans as they’re generic elements. They come with no associated default browser styles or behaviour except that
divdisplays as a block, and
spandisplays inline. If we make our page up out of
spans, we know we’ll have absolute control over styles and behaviour cross-browser, and we won’t need a CSS reset.
Absolute control may seem like an advantage, but there’s a greater benefit to less generic, more semantic elements. Browsers render semantic elements with their own distinct styles and behaviours. For example,
buttonlooks and behaves differently from
ulis different from
ol. These defaults are shortcuts to a more usable and accessible web. They provide consistent and well-tested components for common interactions.
Semantic elements aid usability
A good example of how browser defaults can benefit the usability of an element is in the
<select>option menu. In Safari on the desktop, the browser renders
<select>as a popover-style menu. On a touchscreen, Safari overlays the same menu over the lower half of the screen as a “picker view.”
Curated by (Lifekludger)
Read full article at Source: Accessibility Through Semantic HTML ◆ 24 ways