- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:12:12 -0500
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Shannon <shannon at arc.net.au> wrote: > There's a lot of focus on "use cases". Here is the one that led me to start > this thread: > > http://www.duttondirect.com/automotive/for_sale (disclaimer: I am not > responsible for the design of this page) > > The table hover effect is not easily acheived without global href. My > client likes it, the users like it and it is perfectly obvious navigation > (despite being non-standard). At the moment I am acheiving the effect with > event bubbling but I consider this approach to be bloated, ineligant, prone > to breakage and lag on slower devices. It also suffers from the poor > compatibility of the event.button property (activates on right/middle-click > instead of just left). Nonetheless it improves the ease of navigation for > most users. This is a good point - that style of navigation is indeed very easy and intuitive for people to use. You *want* to click on the whole row, especially with the nice color change on hover; making any particular piece of the row the 'clickable' portion would actually reduce usability. > A global href would allow me too turn the whole mess of event code into: > > <tr href="foo.html"> ... </tr> > > ... and all the issues I just mentioned would vanish. > However, I'm still quite aware of the issues with making href= global, which have been brought up before (the big thing is that href doesn't work in isolation - it's got a whole bevy of cousin attributes that would have to move to global as well). However, has there ever been a response from browser authors about just making <a> allow block-level content within it? The main issue I can think of with this is default UI - how should it be indicated that a block-level element is a link? It's pretty well-established that authors generally hate the border around images within an <a> (my default stylesheet turns off image borders just for that reason). However, it at least gives *some* indication of a link - should we be bordering all the block-level elements (and underlining all the inline) within an <a>? It would be an ugly default, but one that can be removed pretty trivially - a simple "a * { border: none; }" rule would remove it and let you style your stuff as you wish. As far as I can tell a block-level <a> is already supported just fine, as you *can* wrap block-level content in an <a> and have it work as expected right now, and CSSing an <a> into display:block works wonderfully. It *appears* that only the standard disallows this at the moment - the actual browsers handle it just fine. > > People on this list should be very careful about claiming properties and > tags will be abused. Bad interfaces exist already and often as a result of > missing behaviours in the standard. Wrapping tables and block content in > <a></a> is just one example (it works, believe it or not). Trying to force > designers into better layouts by denying features is stupid. It will simply > drive them into invalid layouts, Javascript, Flash or Silverlight where they > are free to make even bigger mockeries of standards and interface > conventions. As far as designers are concerned HTML5 is a *competitor* to > these technologies. If you cannot compete in terms of features and ease of > use you'll end up with a proprietary web. > > > In summary then: > > Is global href going to create bad layouts? > Depends. Skilled UI designers can improve their layouts - bad designers can > make theirs worse. > > Is global href a burden on browser vendors? > Unlikely. It's behaviour is nearly identical to > onclick="window.location=foo" which is already supported on the majority of > modern browsers except Lynx. > > Is denying designers features they want going to increase standards > compliance? > No. It will reduce compliance. > > Regards, > Shannon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080530/9f9ca3e2/attachment.htm>
Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 08:12:12 UTC