Yes, however it is important to know one will loose accessibility for people using assistive technologies. For background try W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/
This is a bit misleading; you're losing accessibility only if you're never rendering to the actual DOM. A virtual DOM is just a way to avoid interacting with the real DOM until the last second, it doesn't really have anything to do with your final render target.
Svette avoids a virtual DOM while still rendering to the real DOM. It keeps itself fast by compiling your code to optimize unnecessary operations beforehand. Svette can still be used for accessible web apps.
JQuery and pure Javascript just manipulate the real DOM. This can come with performance consequences, but for many apps, the performance consequences don't matter. JQuery/Javascript can still be accessible.
React/Preact/etc... all use a virtual DOM. They can be accessible as well.
The virtual DOM is not the thing that gives you accessibility. You could have a virtual DOM that rendered to canvas and it would not meet accessibility standards. Accessibility is determined by your final render target, not by how you get there.
I understand WAI for articles and "document" web pages, but does anyone who uses these technologies use them on web apps? Is this even remotely the audience for most of these SaaS SPAs?
The use of the word Privacy is misleading the conversation. We should be setting the goal to make it illegal to collect. It should be illegal for commercial entities to collect information that can be considered personally identifiable information without explicit consent. Additionally, that should not be allowed within a commercial terms of service agreement, and if automated must also provide means to remove with the same timeliness of the automated subscription.
Consent is a poor tool for such a wide category of data. If you're looking for actual informed consent, we are talking about something either practically impossible or at least a massive strain on people's time and decision-making capabilities over things they often couldn't care less about.
See e.g. F.J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Security & Privacy, ‘Informed Consent. We Can Do Better to Defend Privacy’, IEEE (Volume 13, Issue 2, p. 103-107).
In context of the cited article, the assumption is the data was already collected. My posit is that should not be allowed. I do not expect companies should be able to collect and then ask for consent. They should be subject to criminal behavior if they do so before and without explicit request.
Additionally if we agree to have our data collected, we should still own that data, meaning the 3d x-ray that the othodontist generates is your data, and you should have access to it (from anywhere if digital, or a copy of it if physical), and the choice of it's removal, when said data no longer serves you.
This would be a huge step in the right direction but I think it's important to limit surveillance by government entities as well. After all, you have _no_ opt-out options where they are concerned.
I agree, however expect government regulation to be easier target commercial activities. I additionally am considering existing U.S. law that requires government agencies to perform PII analysis of all projects and have that information available via FOIA and OMB reporting. That does not cover non-U.S. entities.
Are you looking for domain or technology specific project management (PM) information, or referencing best practices for PMs in general? E.g., is https://pm.stackexchange.com/ what you are looking for or more developer and technology-centric planning techniques?
