asfenproduction.blogg.se - Simple css form

#Simple css form full

#Simple css form full

We can be intelligent in our validation that way.Menus Icon Bar Menu Icon Accordion Tabs Vertical Tabs Tab Headers Full Page Tabs Hover Tabs Top Navigation Responsive Topnav Split Navigation Navbar with Icons Search Menu Search Bar Fixed Sidebar Side Navigation Responsive Sidebar Fullscreen Navigation Off-Canvas Menu Hover Sidenav Buttons Sidebar with Icons Horizontal Scroll Menu Vertical Menu Bottom Navigation Responsive Bottom Nav Bottom Border Nav Links Right Aligned Menu Links Centered Menu Link Equal Width Menu Links Fixed Menu Slide Down Bar on Scroll Hide Navbar on Scroll Shrink Navbar on Scroll Sticky Navbar Navbar on Image Hover Dropdowns Click Dropdowns Cascading Dropdown Dropdown in Topnav Dropdown in Sidenav Resp Navbar Dropdown Subnavigation Menu Dropup Mega Menu Mobile Menu Curtain Menu Collapsed Sidebar Collapsed Sidepanel Pagination Breadcrumbs Button Group Vertical Button Group Sticky Social Bar Pill Navigation Responsive Header Your backend could also be intelligent enough to realise that when a JPG quality was set that the user wanted a JPG to be generated. A label of “JPG quality” on the text field would make things understandable enough. Say the checkbox has a label of “convert to JPG”. In this – simple – case I wonder what harm there is in the extra form field to be accessible to non-visual users. And it could result in smaller forms as we don’t need a framework or lots of libraries. Overkill for one field, but for very complex JS-driven forms this might be a much saner solution.

Maybe we think too complex – a different way of solving this issue would be to cut this problem into several steps and reload the page in between. It is disappointing that a simple problem like this still needs a lot of DOM manipulation and/or ARIA to really be accessible.

Is this the better solution? Or does it mean we rely on a very complex solution because we are used to having to apply it? A lot of feedback I got to this was “Real dynamic forms are only possible with JavaScript”, which sounds cargo cultish to me – and I’ve been a JS advocate for a long time.

Is a JavaScript solution really more accessible or could it be more fragile? If something happens and your JavaScript doesn’t run (a resource wasn’t loaded, an earlier script failed) end users will never get the extra field.

Should a screen reader not access an element that is visbility: hidden? I feel not safe doing that though, as I rely on implementation details of assisstive technology that is not standardised.

It might be enough to change the visibility to hidden or the display to none (it is – see below).

You need to either change the tabindex dynamically or remove it from the DOM.

The proper way of doing this would be to make the field unavailable until the checkbox is activated.

This can be an issue as users can access the field, change its value and more or less wasted their time as it’d never get applied unless they also activate the checkbox. It is not taken out of the tabindex or removed or deactivated – all CSS can do is change it visually.

The form field that is dependent on the activation of the checkbox is available at all times.

The same happened here, and it doesn’t matter that I wrote about the shortcomings in the first version of this post. Once you publish something like this, you will get a lot of tweets that this is not accessible.