- From: Qebui Nehebkau <qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:52:35 +0000
- To: Brian Blakely <anewpage.media@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Brian Blakely <anewpage.media@gmail.com> wrote: > A switch is definitely NOT simply a styled checkbox. As I mentioned > earlier, you can slide/drag a switch to change its value. Also, a switch > typically animates, whereas a checkbox is essentially a more static > interaction. Sounds entirely presentational to me. > A switch is often used to indicator more than true/false > (which should ultimately be represented). A checkbox and a switch both have two states, which can always be reduced to true/false in principle. Both are used to indicate things which may not be superficially boolean, although I would agree that using a default-styled checkbox for that (though I've seen it in the wild) is unintuitive. > Switches on the Web are currently janky, inconsistent and difficult to > implement. A good reason to make them easier to implement by styling a checkbox. > That is essentially the exact same reason that type="week" or > type="color" have value. Before formal implementations, they had been > implemented for a very long time with type="text" and mountains of dubious > code. Both have a specific meaning that wasn't adequately provided for by other input types. We already *have* a two-state input type. Making a switch out of <input type="checkbox"> isn't abusing anything - it's a perfectly reasonable alternative presentation for the concept.
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2013 19:53:21 UTC