Patrick Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering
The problem is that web designers are now implementing designs that
convey meaning to form controls, that they are not intending
to imply in their design,
Which, again, is a sign of a bad designer, and a problem that should be solved by
educating the designer, not simply saying that inputs should not be styled. A far more
open recommendation would be along the lines of "feel free to style form controls,
but ensure that you maintain clear and unequivocal visual clues as to the type, state,
etc of the individual controls, in sympathy with system defaults and user
expectations".
That sounds absolutely nice and clear. Wonderful. But please explain
how to execute this as a recommendation; "but ensure that you maintain
clear and unequivocal visual clues as to the type, state, etc of the
individual controls, in sympathy with system defaults and user
expectations"?
How do you know what device configuration is receiving your design?
Because if you do not, and cannot be absolutely sure your design is not
clashing with this principle, you cannot *ensure* you have succeeded.
Unless you know for sure how users have configured their interface you
are swimming in the sea of uncertainty. There is no guarantee you have
not miscommunicated the state of the control. If accuracy of
communicating the true state of the elements and attributes of your
design is a primary principle to your design philosophy, you cannot be
sure you have not interfered with this process if you overlay this type
of css on these form elements.
I don't mind going on debating this, but I would like to state clearly
here; just as long as designers are aware that there is an issue here,
and if they choose to do so, then there is no guarantee that their
design may not clash against this functional convention. Just as long as
they are implementing their design without ignorance, then I feel I've
contributed all I want too. That's my issue.
Once this is raised, and they realised that such recommendations, no
matter how well intentioned (as the above), will not save them from the
possibility that their design may clash somewhere, then they can make
their own decisions empowered by knowledge, not hedged in ignorance.
As an extended note; this could happen with any input field background
color, but the likely probability that it impacts, would probably be
very minimal, IMHO. But the minute I began to see grey becoming the
default for conveying the presence of input fields in designs (which
basically isn't a bad idea in many designs, in fact, when you look at it
it appears to give better cognitive enhancement), *except* for this
problem of this being the default reserve interface for conveying state
to users on many major OSs.
And if we are trying to future proof, who knows what wonders of
usability research will lead to designing the next generation interfaces
for operating systems. Then you have to go back and correct your styles
to address this. And how many of use actually get a chance to go back
and correct these on sites we have done years later. Your lucky if you can.
It's just raising the issue. If designers what to go ahead and do that
in full knowledge, that is their decision. I just feel it is important
to discuss the issues, and not misled them into feeling there is any way
around this. Nothing I have seen so far offers a solution to style
input controls in this manner and be free of concerns of clashing with
conveying interface state.
this will degrade the user experience because of purely visual
design degrading the inherent meaning of a standard interface between
user and form element state.
Carefully considered, as opposed to "purely visual", design (and yes, there IS a
difference, despite the general feeling evident in certain factions of the WAI that all design is
just "bad") has its place in enhancing and visually integrating form controls in an
overall site design.
I know many people feel that about the WAI GL, but I have never felt
that. People complain about the WAI police and the lengthy drawn out
debate that goes on there, but I mostly see a lot of people concerned
*not* to write recommendations that restrict design. I know others see
it differently, but I know lots of them that actually see accessibility
and liberated design as interdependent. Is CSSZG not a great show case?
I love it that by far the majority of the people on the Working
Guidelines Group have a vision of incredible compassion and lack of self
interest. I learnt *heaps*, not only from the knowledge and opinions of
those on it, but also by their manner as people and as a group when
discussing issues. I'm really grateful to have had an opportunity to
work with them a little. I know it has driven some people to
exhaustion, but still there remains a real integrity amongst those that
work on it, and those that do preserver.... well, they are made of stuff
that I'm not.
I'm not saying something counter to what you have just said, I know you
must have many of these qualities too, it's just an opportunity to
inform others that someone, like myself, really benefited on a personal
level from that experience.
... geez... that's my rant for the day... please forgive:-)
------------------
Geoff Deering
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
