Least unpleasant to the developer. Most unpleasant to the user. It breaks all kinds of useful browser features (which frontend devs then recreate from scratch in JS, poorly; that's probably the most widespread variant of Greenspun's tenth rule in practice).
> E.g. if you actually test with a screenreader, aria labels work better than "semantic" HTML tags
Interesting how this is opposite to the recommendations from MDN, such as:
Warning: Many of these widgets are fully supported in modern browsers. Developers should prefer using the correct semantic HTML element over using ARIA, if such an element exists.
The first rule of ARIA use is "If you can use a native HTML element or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so." -- which also refers to: https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/#rule1
Though I can believe that real life may play out different than recommendations.
Also, as I understand it, ARIA is orthogonal to JS, and it doesn't alter behavior for browser users.
> It breaks all kinds of useful browser features (which frontend devs then recreate from scratch in JS, poorly; that's probably the most widespread variant of Greenspun's tenth rule in practice).
Nah, it's the opposite. JS tends to perform better and be more usable for the same level of feature complexity (people who want more complex sites, for good reasons or bad, tend to use JS, but if you compare like with like), HN just likes to use them as a stick to reinforce their prejudices. (E.g. if you actually test with a screenreader, aria labels work better than "semantic" HTML tags)