This is very frustrating as someone who has seen every iteration of this in practice. It's wild to me that we don't simply have a `display: accessibility-tree-only` CSS prop and be done with it. The standards body bringing up "oh well what if you wind up using this and it confuses my idyllic sighted screen reader user because there's simply too much information" is a pretty bad reason to not implement this into the standard. We're stuck with clip path instead and I guess they think that's somehow better? Just because they can think of one way someone could poorly implement functionality that a new feature enabled is not a great reason to sit on their hands and just ignore the problem.
visually-hidden is the CSS equivalent of "I'm not touching you" — technically accessible, technically invisible, and every frontend developer has a slightly different version that they swear is the correct one
The level of absurdity some sites go to to ruin accesibility in the name of some holy crusade against "ai-bots" is beyond the pale.
This is very frustrating as someone who has seen every iteration of this in practice. It's wild to me that we don't simply have a `display: accessibility-tree-only` CSS prop and be done with it. The standards body bringing up "oh well what if you wind up using this and it confuses my idyllic sighted screen reader user because there's simply too much information" is a pretty bad reason to not implement this into the standard. We're stuck with clip path instead and I guess they think that's somehow better? Just because they can think of one way someone could poorly implement functionality that a new feature enabled is not a great reason to sit on their hands and just ignore the problem.
visually-hidden is the CSS equivalent of "I'm not touching you" — technically accessible, technically invisible, and every frontend developer has a slightly different version that they swear is the correct one
The headlines are getting weirder every day.