> having headings in a figcaption like that seems semantically incorrect.
I genuinely wonder what the payoff is for semantic correctness.
Web browsers don't care, screen readers aren't nearly as particular as they used to be, and the web certainly isn't returning to some XML/XSLT universal document ideal.
A screenreader user cares if they are navigating between headings and the headings are not actually headings - and it’s always _better_ if the nature and structure of the content is expressed in the HTML so that the screened can announce things correctly. Keyboard users also care a lot about semantic HTML because they are so so many interfaces out there that are not keyboard navigable as divs are used for everything including buttons. So they just can’t reach parts of the interface, or even perceive them.
It’s not about a pristine ideal. Though I’d argue semantic HTML is not only the foundation of good accessibility, it also makes for more readable code because the intention behind the elements is exposed to the next person reading it. It nudges you to do better work because you actually have to understand the nature of what you are building, which means you might see how it reflects an existing pattern that can be copied, not duct tape together a half working tab interface with JS event listeners on divs and spans.
I genuinely wonder what the payoff is for semantic correctness.
Web browsers don't care, screen readers aren't nearly as particular as they used to be, and the web certainly isn't returning to some XML/XSLT universal document ideal.