I was a bit confused to not see that first page simply demonstrate a few examples of charts and that I had to click through each type to get an idea of this library.
I'd suggest pluck out some of the features you find after navigating through to https://chartscss.org/components/ and displaying them on this page so users without a lot of time or patience can quickly look through, maybe copy-paste the code examples to play with it a bit, and get a quick idea of how suitable it is for them.
Yes, I understand that. But it does require some method of creating the SVG data, which is generally going to be more difficult than styling td elements with `--start: 0.2; --end: 0.4;`. Most extant libraries for this use JS.
SVG complexity is a good counterpoint to “why this instead of SVG”. But I don’t think we need to even address the claim that most tools for SVG generation use JS, if the concern is JS on the client.
Realistically, on a scale beyond very few graphs, it’s pretty likely some sort of software is going to be used to process data into markup. At which point, if the desired result is static markup, it doesn’t really matter (to the end user) whether that software is written in JS or some other language. That’s a toolchain concern. It probably doesn’t matter much if at all (to the end user) whether the resulting markup is HTML or SVG. There may be some imperceptible performance difference, or slightly different accessibility requirements. But neither requires users to run JS.
If I were evaluating this choice, it would almost certainly come down to what’s most familiar, or what most readily integrates with other parts of the project’s stack and/or data sources. And I could easily imagine even that evaluation being a wash.
I was a bit confused to not see that first page simply demonstrate a few examples of charts and that I had to click through each type to get an idea of this library.
I'd suggest pluck out some of the features you find after navigating through to https://chartscss.org/components/ and displaying them on this page so users without a lot of time or patience can quickly look through, maybe copy-paste the code examples to play with it a bit, and get a quick idea of how suitable it is for them.
None of these charts seem to show labels on both axes.
Blocked on conversion from flex to grid, which never happened: https://github.com/ChartsCSS/charts.css/issues/45
The last one here seems to show both. Maybe its just a config issue
https://chartscss.org/components/axes/
Or data labels on the bars themselves
That appears to be supported:
https://chartscss.org/components/labels/
Wow, that is extremely weird. I feel like we must be missing something, I just can't imagine this is possibly actually the case
the tailwind-esque ergonomics are appealing, especially considering how painful the current meta (chart.js spaghetti) can be to maintain.
Why not just use a canvas or a SVG ?
Chartist.js is all SVG based and < 10kb in size (no external dependencies)
https://gionkunz.github.io/chartist-js/index.html
It requires a lot more work to make it accessible for screen readers. This just falls back to a table element.
Does it automatically fall back to a table for screen readers? That’s certainly not ideal, but also not a bad start
How would you do that client side in pure CSS? "No JS" seems to be a goal of the project.
SVG doesn’t require JS.
Yes, I understand that. But it does require some method of creating the SVG data, which is generally going to be more difficult than styling td elements with `--start: 0.2; --end: 0.4;`. Most extant libraries for this use JS.
SVG complexity is a good counterpoint to “why this instead of SVG”. But I don’t think we need to even address the claim that most tools for SVG generation use JS, if the concern is JS on the client.
Realistically, on a scale beyond very few graphs, it’s pretty likely some sort of software is going to be used to process data into markup. At which point, if the desired result is static markup, it doesn’t really matter (to the end user) whether that software is written in JS or some other language. That’s a toolchain concern. It probably doesn’t matter much if at all (to the end user) whether the resulting markup is HTML or SVG. There may be some imperceptible performance difference, or slightly different accessibility requirements. But neither requires users to run JS.
If I were evaluating this choice, it would almost certainly come down to what’s most familiar, or what most readily integrates with other parts of the project’s stack and/or data sources. And I could easily imagine even that evaluation being a wash.
In fact, the SVG specification is included in the HTML5 specification.
Depends on the amount of data really.
[dead]