- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:35:32 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
- To: Eric Meyer <emeyer@theopalgroup.com>
- cc: <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Eric Meyer wrote: > At 22:50 -0800 3/4/01, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> Mozilla treats elements that are 'visibility: hidden' as if they were >> not available for user interaction because it is very bad UI to have >> invisible elements react to the user. We decided that good UI was >> overall a better aim than the few edge cases. ;-) >> >> Authors of other UAs probably did the same. > > An interesting assertion. Why is it bad UI? One of the cornerstones of good user interface design is to let the user know what he should do. *Hiding* what the user should do is pretty much the opposite. > I can think of at least a few cases where you might want to have > invisible elements that can react to the user's input. See: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6635 ...and note the number of duplicates. Authors complained loudly when Mozilla implemented what you want. :-) > Actually, my investment in this issue is not to have invisible > elements available for interaction (although I think that would be > cool) so much as it is to get the specification clarified either in > the CSS2 errata or in the appropriate module(s) of CSS3. Agreed. You should raise the issue with the working group. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--' +1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 14:34:17 UTC