W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css-ui] transformed outline interoperability

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:02:52 -0700
Message-Id: <BEEB03CC-9642-425D-B5DF-1F49EE75C4E0@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
On Aug 22, 2013, at 10:14 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:27:44 +0200, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think it would be weird and ugly if the outline did not transform in 3d too, whether it was being used as a purely decorative effect or to show focusing. Why should the outline look bizarrely out of place and buggy if I were to tilt the rest of my interface down into a 3d plane? What if I had a very long form tilted into something like the Star Wars opening scroll, with each focus bringing the input close and sending everything above it further away? Presto's approach would just look like a mistake in that case, and I'd probably need to resort to something else to indicate focus (like box shadow).
> 
> Well, I can see your point of the containing element of the outlined element is transformed, then having the outline match the context may make sense. On the other hand, I am much less convinced about the outline of a transformed element in a non transformed container.

Well, that's something. I guess we can look at those as two different situations that may require separate behaviors. 

Somewhat of an aside, but I also hate it when outline does not follow border-radius, as that virtually always looks very wrong. When it happens on a high profile place, I will generally replace outline with border-shadow there too, already. But if outline DOES follow border-radius (and I hope someday it does), it would make less sense visually when it's not transformed with the element. 
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 19:03:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC