Exercise 1: Why Approaches 1 and 2 Share Identical JavaScript — Possible Solution ==================================================================== WHY THE JAVASCRIPT IS IDENTICAL ------------------------------ Per this chapter, "critically, the interactive behavior JavaScript is identical to Approach 1 — pure Tailwind (cssfw1-2 through cssfw1-4) is only a styling solution. Switching from BEM to Tailwind changes how the component looks; it removes none of the accessibility- implementation burden at all." Approach 1 and Approach 2 differ only in HOW the component's own visual appearance is expressed — Approach 1 uses semantic BEM class names paired with a separate, hand-written CSS stylesheet, while Approach 2 uses Tailwind's own utility classes applied directly in the markup instead. Neither of these differences has anything to do with the component's own INTERACTIVE BEHAVIOR — keyboard navigation, focus management, ARIA state toggling — which is a completely separate concern from how the component looks. WHAT THIS DEMONSTRATES ABOUT WHAT TAILWIND DOES AND DOESN'T PROVIDE ------------------------------ This is a concrete, hands-on demonstration of a claim cssfw1-2 made directly: Tailwind is purely a styling tool. It has no built-in mechanism for implementing keyboard navigation, managing focus, or wiring up ARIA attributes dynamically — none of that is part of what utility classes do. If a developer needs a component to actually BEHAVE correctly (respond to arrow keys, trap focus, toggle aria-expanded), that logic has to be written by hand in JavaScript regardless of which styling approach (BEM+CSS or Tailwind utilities) is used to make the component look a certain way. The identical JavaScript across both approaches is direct, concrete proof that switching styling paradigms (from BEM to Tailwind) doesn't reduce the accessibility-implementation workload at all — that workload is entirely separate from, and unaffected by, the styling choice. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR THE BROADER COMPARISON ------------------------------ This sets up the contrast with Approach 3 directly: if switching STYLING approaches (Approach 1 to 2) doesn't change the behavior- implementation burden at all, then Approach 3's own elimination of that same JavaScript entirely must be coming from something else — not a styling change, but a genuinely different mechanism (a headless primitive) addressing the behavior problem directly, which is exactly what the chapter's own next section explains. WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER ------------------------------ It explains precisely why the two styling approaches don't affect behavior code, and connects this directly to Tailwind's own stated scope (styling only) from cssfw1-2, showing the identical code as concrete proof of an earlier chapter's own abstract claim.