On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:50:42 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@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
