# Surveying for interest in easier, type-safe custom elements tooling

**URL:** <https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/surveying-for-interest-in-easier-type-safe-custom-elements-tooling/8678>\
**Category:** Request Feedback\
**Created:** [September 21, 2022, 3:32pm UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/surveying-for-interest-in-easier-type-safe-custom-elements-tooling/8678 "2022-09-21T15:32:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gampleman](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discourse.elm-lang.org/gampleman/32/43_2.png) [@gampleman](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/u/gampleman)\
**Post date:** [September 22, 2022, 10:05am UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/surveying-for-interest-in-easier-type-safe-custom-elements-tooling/8678/3 "2022-09-22T10:05:11Z")

</div>

This sounds great. I still think there is a need for better Elm specific documentation around custom elements ([I wrote a more specific list here](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/improved-documentation-for-flags-ports-and-custom-elements/5552/5)).

I’m curious what exactly your tooling offers? Generally in my experience the custom elements work is mostly twofold:

1. Doing a lot of minute work with DOM apis to get the java/type-script side to its job.
2. Doing fancy elm API design to put enough lipstick on the pig 🙂

The actual communication between these two modules tends to be a small minority of the code involved.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/surveying-for-interest-in-easier-type-safe-custom-elements-tooling/8678)._