- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:05:58 +0100
- To: Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro <zmyaro@gmail.com>
- Cc: Aaron Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAERejNag6yEy2+ApOrBjdLYQzQzGYdon-B4qus2ZXT8bA6=Ozg@mail.gmail.com>
Ah, right. You need to set -webkit-appearance to none. Then it's working. Sebastian On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro <zmyaro@gmail.com>wrote: > Actually, radio buttons and checkboxes ARE customizable in Chrome. Last I > checked, the HTML-based settings page has CSS for its checkboxes. > > I agree, though, that there should be a clear specification for it. > > —Zachary Yaro > On Oct 31, 2012 7:41 AM, "Sebastian Zartner" <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> <select> is definitely not the last - the <input type=date> popup, for >>> example, works similarly. >>> >> Also radio buttons and checkboxes are not stylable by common browsers >> like Firefox and Chrome (while they are in IE and Opera). >> >> There should definitely be a clear specification for this. >> >> And I think the solution to this is pretty clear: >> UAs are responsible for how form fields are displayed. I.e. if a mobile >> device displays <select> options as modal dialog, it should simply ignore >> the styling. While desktop browsers can (and must) interpret them. >> >> That being said having a modal dialog for select options could still >> allow styling e.g. the borders, the background and foreground color etc. >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Aaron Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> >>> wrote: >>> > I often-enough see people overflowing and masking select boxes to get >>> rid of that remaining system widget button on them, this is something that >>> bothers me (and restricts my work as well). >>> > It'd be nice to be finally trusted to style select elements and not >>> leave all my users scratching their heads... >>> > >>> > Is this something that's been considered already, and refused for a >>> practical reason? >>> > Anyway, I'm new around here(please don't eat me), and I hope that this >>> particular hack may be avoided in the future. >>> >>> <select> is definitely not the last - the <input type=date> popup, for >>> example, works similarly. >>> >>> We've wanted to be able to expose them for styling for a long, long >>> time, but have never figured out how to do so. It's much harder than >>> it seems. >>> >>> If all you ever do is design desktop websites, for example, you'll see >>> approximately the same <select> styling everywhere. There are some >>> platform-level tweaks, but it seems pretty easy to at extract a common >>> markup from them which can then be styled. >>> >>> As soon as you get to mobile devices, though, you see the problem with >>> this. <select> on modern Android, for example, opens up a modal >>> dialog with the <options> represented as a list of labels and radio >>> buttons. <select multiple> is identical, except with checkboxes. >>> >>> Styling that is appropriate for desktop <select> makes *no sense* for >>> this kind of mobile <select>. It *might* be justifiable to extract a >>> common markup for all of them (though I don't know what other mobile >>> devices do), but letting authors *style* them is probably going to be >>> user-hostile - authors that only test on desktop browsers will apply >>> styles that might render the mobile version unusable (and I suspect it >>> would be fairly easy to do so). >>> >>> Moving to the other elements that generate special browser UI, like >>> "time" or "date" inputs, the markup and user experience is even more >>> variable. Android's <input type=time>, for example, again pops up a >>> modal, with the nice system spinners for each element of the time. >>> >>> As much thought as I've given to the matter, I've never been able to >>> come up with a way to deal with these problems, and neither has anyone >>> else in the WG. Feedback welcome. ^_^ >>> >>> ~TJ >>> >>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:06:30 UTC