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

Re: <select> elements are the last of the system widgets to require hacky styling

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDe=ONDHPy5EBEQBPA9qEL5DjLwttvvmW0=mwTcmP+Deg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Aaron Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like most of this conversation, beginning with Tab's answer, has been about styling OPTIONs. But the original question was just about the un-clicked/un-tapped SELECT element and its icon on the right (which authors were hiding via 'overflow: hidden'), which is generally consistent (with variations) across browsers and platforms, including mobile. I think that question can be answered more simply.

Yeah, you (and several others) are right.  The styling of <select>
itself, in its unopened state, is much less troublesome and can
probably be specified fairly easily.

The only obvious problem I see is <select multiple>, which is rendered
very differently on desktop (where it's tall and ugly) and mobile
(where it looks the same as a normal select).  To be honest, if it was
possible to somehow make desktop <select multiple> render in a similar
fashion to mobile (for example, looking just like a normal <select>,
but staying open when you click an option, indicating which things are
checked/unchecked somehow), I'd be greatly in favor.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:20:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT