W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Tabbed Interfaces in CSS

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:44:31 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0904211544r38229fddr71053209f0f5df5e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> If tabs can be separated from cards in the markup, then I think the
>> >> >> mechanism *has* to be link-target-based, so that it degrades into
>> >> >> links to the appropriate section on the page, which is still
>> >> >> sensical
>> >> >> and somewhat useful.
>> >> >
>> >> > Using LABEL, with some small adjustments for the FOR attribute, would
>> >> > also
>> >> > allow that separation. Clicking on the label is like clicking on the
>> >> > element
>> >> > it either surrounds or is FOR.
>> >>
>> >> Nah, using <label> wouldn't degrade properly.  Without the CSS to
>> >> control display based on the :checked state, you'd have a document
>> >> with everything laid out, plus a couple of random section labels
>> >> bunched together for no good reason.  The fact that there's a <label>
>> >> wrapping them isn't obvious, and has no effect on the behavior of the
>> >> page.  Links at least provide some useful functionality without the
>> >> CSS - they'll direct you to the appropriate tab.
>> >
>> > It would be an authoring option for those who really want to be able to
>> > write them all in one place, since there seemed to be a desire for that
>> > on
>> > this list. I prefer that they either wrap the item they are assoicated
>> > with
>> > (technically a no-no, since they are by default inlilne HTML elements),
>> > or
>> > are inside the item they are assoicated with (near the top), or that
>> > headlines, captions, or legends (etc.) be used instead, since they would
>> > naturally exist in existing layouts, in places where they label the
>> > content.
>>
>> Can you give a markup example of exactly what you're proposing?  I'm
>> really not understanding what structure you're trying to hint at here.
>
> Three fieldsets, each with a legend, could become a 3-tab panel using the
> css example I provided earlier, with the  css changes I proposed earlier.
> Did that not make it onto the mailing list?

Ah, no, you did mention that, but it didn't seem significant enough
for me to pay attention to, apparently.

How would this work?  Given the following markup:

<fieldset>
  <legend>foo</legend>
  <div>card one</div>
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
  <legend>bar</legend>
  <div>card two</div>
</fieldset>
(You can alter the markup if necessary to better match your proposal.)

What CSS would your proposal require, and what would be the expected
rendering?  (I ask for this again just to ensure that I am absolutely
comprehending your proposal properly.  I had the advantage of starting
a thread with a formal proposal; yours developed somewhat organically
within the thread.)  Make sure that there's a way to distinguish the
active tab as well.

Also, is there a way in your magic generation to handle both the tab
and accordion cases?  The only distinction between the two is that the
former collects the tabs together, while the latter distributes them
with their card.

>>> > Links are only one thing at a time, so using
>>
>> >> > them for tab-panel-showing would not allow a page with more than one
>> >> > set
>> >> > of
>> >> > tabs to have a particular tab in the front.
>> >>
>> >> Hm?  I addressed this in my proposal.  Cards are *activated* by links,
>> >> but they don't depend on links to *stay* activated.  The CSS engine
>> >> would keep track of which card is active in each stack.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I guess I missed that you were adding more magic there. But then
>> > there is no way to make one of the tabs other than the first as a
>> > default,
>> > other than by changing the URL to the page? And even then, only one of
>> > the
>> > sets of tabs could have a default?
>>
>> Right now, yes.  Is it important that a different tab than the first
>> show as a default?
>
> Sometimes. Yes. Absolutely. Not as important, perhaps, but certainly
> desirable.

I suspect less often than you would think, especially when you
consider that you can just make the default card be first in your
markup.  The situations where you want a card to come first in the
markup but *not* be the default displayed card would be very rare, I
think.  When this *does* happen to come up, my proposal would allow
you to do this by targetting the card in the link.  The chances that
you need *two* things to start with a card other than the first open
by default are, I believe, *extremely* rare.

(Nevertheless, there exists possibilities for handling this within my
proposal.  If it becomes necessary to customize the behavior of a
stack (such as by altering the default displayed card), we can
introduce a ::card-stack() pseudoelement which is nothing more than a
centralized place to put properties that apply to a particular stack.)

>> (I think your proposal would do this by making @checked a global
>> attribute, right?  You'd need to change HTML for that.)
>
> See my last e-mail in response to Giovanni. I'm not above asking for a small
> change to HTML, but I don't require it.

Gotcha.

>> >> > And wouldn't it also cause the
>> >> > page to scroll to the tab, whether that was wanted or not?
>> >>
>> >> Yes it would.  This is currently a problem, but Giovanni suggested a
>> >> solution in the link behaviors spec.
>> >
>> > I didn't see that, and still can't find it in skimming through what he
>> > posted. Another dependency on a different spec?
>>
>> "Another" dependency?  I don't believe I currently rely on any other
>> spec.  And the dependency only exists if (1) the author decides that
>> the scrolling behavior is inappropriate, and (2) we don't just fold
>> the anti-scrolling magic directly into this proposal.
>
> One propopsal for tabs requires display-roles and display-models, which is a
> big can of worms.

Not mine, though, so that dependency doesn't count against me.  ^_^

> Yours requires a link behaviors spec to prevent unwanted
> scrolling (or that people find it acceptable for clicking on a tab would
> scroll the page).

Maybe.  It's also possible that it just includes magic which would fix
the issue.  This magic also has the benefit of eventually being
translatable into proper rules if Link Behaviors gets properly adopted
(and has this ability) - a simple ":tab{target:no-change;}" (or
whatever) added to the UA default stylesheet would do it.

> Mine has neither of these requirements, but just extends
> an existing pseudo-class to more elements, and adds a couple properties to
> indicate radio groups and for defaults.

But without some magic generation of tabs from card content, it has
bad fallback behavior.  You've indicated that your proposal can handle
this, but I'm not entirely sure of how right now.  Luckily I asked for
an example earlier in this email.  ^_^

(Note that I would like to add magic generation of tabs into my
proposal as well, and have an idea that will handle most reasonable
cases.  Complex cases won't work, but at that point you're almost
certainly putting your tabs in manually anyway.  It will at least
cover the class of markup that the original Advanced Layout proposal
could handle.)
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 22:45:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT