W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-ui] PFWG comments on CSS Basic User Interface Module Level 3

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:39:35 +0800
Message-ID: <4F46CE37.4000907@csail.mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>, WAI PFWG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
(12/02/24 6:57), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 7. Outline Properties
>> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-ui-20120117/#outline-properties]
>> Outline-width=none is an accessibility problem, as it can be used to remove
>> the focus rectangle from elements. Can we suggest that it be deprecated?  Or
>> not allowed on focusable elements?
> If you can't set outline-width to 0, you can just change the color to
> transparent, or close enough as makes no difference.  If you want to
> force certain elements to have an outline, this is best done in the UA
> stylesheet with a UA !important rule.

Indeed, changing UA conformance doesn't work, but I guess we could
consider adding a note here for authors. Does WCAG have relevant
criterion for authoring conformance related to 'outline'? If it doesn't,
this can be put into next version I guess.

(I've been thinking we should have a document on some of the ways that
authors shouldn't use CSS in HTML context. For example, users shouldn't
apply list-style-type: numerical to <ul>.)

>> 8 Resizing & Overflow
>> [http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css3-ui-20120117/#resizing-amp-overflow]
>> The resize property is good. Users can resize elements that have clipped
>> their contents so that the content can be viewed. This sort of clipping is a
>> common bug when users resize the font in browsers or operating systems, and
>> having a mechanism to adjust is a good thing. Zooming has made this bug less
>> common, but it still occurs with some OS settings. Any chance this could
>> default to ‘both’ so that users can resize things when the author hasn’t
>> thought of it?
> You don't really want a visible resizing mechanism on most elements by default.

What about another non-visible resizing mechanism on most elements by
default? Having said that, I don't think we want a CSS mechanism to
allow authors to turn off such mechanism for users so this is likely out
of scope.

However, somewhat related to this, there are some of the bidi UI issues
(like 3.11 and 3.12 of [1]) resulting from non-interoperability among
browsers and some of those are considered out of scope of HTML because
"it is a semantic language". I've been wondering if these can be
formulated into conformance requirements for CSS UA, in particular, this
module, although these are not so relevant to CSS either...


Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 23:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:56 UTC