W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [css3-ui] Problems with :read-only and :read-write

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:47:55 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010508021047750032ec@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 8/2/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Orion Adrian schreef:
> > This is a fun discussion and all but doesn't it just reek a little bit
> > of pointlessness. And I'm not talking about read-write, but the desire
> > to apply non-layout properties to form elements. The application isn't
> > saying where to put the element anymore, it's now saying what to color
> > it, what keyboard access to give it and so on. This breaks about an
> > ungodly number of accessibility guidelines and a lot of design
> > guidelines that say, don't do things differently than the rest of the
> > operating system, but here we are, giving web designers the capability
> > to again abuse the content viewers, the users as it where, of these
> > web pages.
> >
> > I also find it all a bit silly when we're talking about this since
> > XForms abstracts just a bit the exact widgets used when it encounters
> > the various XForm model elements.
> >
> > What I guess I'm getting at is that CSS-UI is a really bad idea that
> > shouldn't have even been suggested much less spec'd up. Don't mess
> > with the OS's ability to interact with the user. Each OS is already
> > tailored to it's user base and it doesn't need CSS to give the power
> > to authors and not the users.
> 
> Nonsense. So we should allow the page author to give his website his own
> design, but once he starts using form controls, not allow it? Do you
> think a page author wants a standard white-background OS text field on
> his carefully designed black-backgrounded website? Of course he doesn't,
> and of course it doesn't make sense to prevent him from doing so.
> 
> In the contrary, I would even say not allowing that can lead to negative
> side-effects! Because the styling of form controls could not be
> modified, the author might resort to a Javascript solution.
> 
> You've made your point a number of times now, however the web is not the
> OS and page authors *want* to be able to modify styling of a page to
> e.g. establish brand identity or even just for fun.
> 
> Stating over and over again that you want everything to inherit the OS
> its default styling and layout (just disable CSS - you have what you
> want) is not going to help, and certainly not going to change CSS.

Users be damned eh?

I don't care about web authors wants when they're primary desire is to
<bleep> over their constituents. HTML and CSS have retarded
accessibility accross the world. Tens of billions of websites out
there and only a small portion are accessible. I find it interesting
that it's the accessible ones that are also the biggest ones.

I guess I find major issue with the approach the W3C is taking with
its two biggest specs. Users be damned. Nothing like sanctioned abuse
huh?

To quote the torch, flame on.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 17:48:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT