[zeroCalories]

Tbh there's nothing really wrong with that. You don't need stuff like article or section if you set the right attributes. Often easier to just use divs to get the structure right, and figure out the meaning later.

[ordersofmag]

And there's 'nothing wrong' with just writing code with variables named 'a1, a2, a3'. But when some poor sod has to dig through your mess to figure out what you had in mind it turns out that having an easier to discern logical structure to your code (or html) makes it better. I've dug through a lot of html. And there's a ton of ugly code smell out there. Layers and layers of "I don't really know what I'm doing but I guess it looks okay and I'll make it make sense later". I'm sure it pays the bills for someone. But it makes me sad.

[mhuffman]

Well, it does help if you expect sight impaired people with software to find the site useful.

[zeroCalories]

That's why I said setting the right attributes. You can make a fully featured accessible website using only divs.

[raincole]

Exactly this.

I wonder if the people downvoted you realize that HN is basically just a big table and a bunch of div, and they use this very site just fine?

[dotancohen]

As a user, I don't care.

As a disabled user with a screen reader, I might care.

As a developer tasked with maintaining it after the original dev left, I most certainly would care a great deal.

[chuckadams]

And it's nearly impossible to customize any part of the layout with user styles because of that.

[oneeyedpigeon]

It's possible to know that HN is basically a big table, use the site just fine, and still recognise that there are disadvantages to that approach.