- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:31:53 +0200
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:50:42 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > On 9/23/10 6:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote: >> So, to improve the user experience while using web forms we would like >> to fix that. However, we are wondering if :invalid (and :valid?) >> specifications should be updated to take UX considerations or if a new >> pseudo-classe should be created. Does anyone has an opinion about that? > > I was actually thinking about this the other day... We could add a new > pseudo-class for matching form controls that have their default value > (or that don't, depending on how we expect this to be used). then you > could style :invalid:not(:has-default-value) specially, say.... That wouldn't get the right UX if the user tabs through a required field or tries to submit a form without touching a required field. I was thinking of :invalid:dirty where :dirty matches form controls that have received and lost focus or its form has been tried to be submitted, or some such. > Or I suppose we could just add a new pseudo-class that means the above. > > Are there cases when pages would set invalid default values and want > them flagged as such in UI? > > -Boris > -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 21:31:53 UTC