Well, I suspected this might be the case - since I have never worked somewhere the functionality is actually end user tested - only worked with some accessibility “experts” for a short while that just made sure the code ticks the right boxes. I somehow hoped the state of the technology rendering the HTML code and the state of WAI ARIA was better, but it seems not to be the case.

No-JS pages that fully comply with WAI ARIA are much better for users of assistive technology than any single page web app can ever hope to be. All the myriad states that an interactive JS page can enter are absolutely never ever properly tested for disabled users, and even after full expensive testing, just a little change in the JS can ruin it all again. While with WAI ARIA you can just quickly assert that the page is compliant with a checker before pushing it to live.

It’s a Computation Expression - a core feature of the language since very early, and it’s pretty amazing IMO and not only used for async/task

When “merging” in master/main before opening a pull request I always rebase any local commits I have, it does no harm but vastly reduces complexity of the commit tree - however, as soon as code from other branches enters the picture I merge

Good post! It’s also good to mention wait can be used with & (useful for scripts)

Example: command_1 & command_2 & command_3 & wait will make the shell wait until the last command finishes.