W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Javascript Image Roll-over

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 06:40:36 +0000
Cc: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Message-Id: <95B09032-29E6-11D7-8013-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>

How long did it take that to cross the pond?
a UK friend of mine had a california licence plate so-named 'I W**K' 
maybe 20 years ago

Jonathan


On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, at 08:08 PM, Joe Clark wrote:

>
>> Or the CSS equivalent of providing :focus and :hover rules.
>>
>>   a:focus, a:hover { background-color: yellow }
>
> Oh, but it gets better!
>
> Eric Meyer and I had written, in research for my book:
>
>>>>     So what it comes down to is a question of which states should 
>>>> take precedence over others.  Is focus more "necessary" than hover, 
>>>> or active?  That's really what I was asking you, as an 
>>>> accessibility guru, to answer.
>>>
>>> I would say yes. You need to be able to tell where the focus is. 
>>> That may necessitate making the focus state big-arse ugly so it can 
>>> be spotted easily.
>>
>>    Right, but what if the focus style (for the sake of argument) is 
>> just a color change.  I know it should be more, but let's say it's 
>> just that.  Is it okay to put that style in the middle of the stack, 
>> and have the hover and active styles override it during those events? 
>> For example:
>>
>> a:focus {color: lime;}
>> a:hover {color: red;}
>> a:active {color: yellow;}
>>
>> So a focused link would be lime (ick).  When the user hovers it, 
>> assuming they're using a mouse or other pointing device, it will 
>> switch to red, but then when they move away it will go back to lime. 
>> Similarly, the link will be yellow for the duration of the "click" 
>> (or other activating action) and then should go back to lime.
>>
>>    A slightly more realistic example:
>>
>> a:focus {border: 2px dotted red;}
>> a:hover {border: 2px solid #F99;}
>> a:active {color: 2px solid red;}
>>
>> The same basic hierarchy of effects applies.  Is it acceptable to 
>> have the hover and active styles temporarily override the focus 
>> style, or are there accessibility reasons to always have the focus 
>> style visible no matter what else is happening?  I guess that's my 
>> real question.
>
> I have not quite figured this out myself. Further, you can add 
> :visited to the mix. I actually have the following in some of my 
> stylesheets:
>
> a:link
> a:visited
> a:hover
> a:focus
> a:visited:focus
>
> and I am not sure that is the actually correct order. I should ask 
> Eric. You can also do a:visited:hover, which I have used a couple of 
> times.
>
> Eric adds that the basic rationale is:
>
>> Specificity. And which effect you want to overrule which others. See 
>> <http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html> for the long 
>> explanation. Let me know if it doesn't make sense.
>
> And yes, it's pretty much a wank to use JavaScript for these functions.
> -- 
>
>     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>     Weblogs and articles <http://joeclark.org/weblogs/>
>     <http://joeclark.org/writing/> | <http://fawny.org/>
>
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 01:39:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT