- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:36:39 +0200
- To: Eric Meyer <emeyer@theopalgroup.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
better late than never .... Eric Meyer wrote: > > At 22:50 -0800 3/4/01, Ian Hickson wrote: > > >Mozilla treats elements that are 'visibility: hidden' as if they were not > >available for user interaction because it is very bad UI to have invisible > >elements react to the user. We decided that good UI was overall a better > >aim than the few edge cases. ;-) Please describe the operation of a client side imagemap, which as far as I can see are a bunch of invisible shapes drawn on top of an image and receiving events. > An interesting assertion. Why is it bad UI? I can think of at > least a few cases where you might want to have invisible elements > that can react to the user's input. Right. > Actually, my investment in this issue is not to have invisible > elements available for interaction (although I think that would be > cool) so much as it is to get the specification clarified either in > the CSS2 errata or in the appropriate module(s) of CSS3. Just a > single sentence is all I ask, really, which says whether or not > invisible elements are available for interaction. Yes, they are. > If they aren't, > then add another sentence that defines the point at which semi-opaque > elements become (un)available for interaction. Exactly.... having invisible elements behaving differently from elements that are effectively invisible (0.2% opacity) is just plain wierd. Ideally the author should have control over this. -- Chris
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 18:20:23 UTC