By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,057 Members | 1,407 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,057 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Good or Bad Form Question

P: n/a
I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a browser to
redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or color
changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is this the
general concesus, or does common usage prevail?

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Heath" <hj******@email.moc> wrote in message
news:3f**********************@news.skynet.be...
I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a browser to
redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or color
changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is this the
general concesus, or does common usage prevail?


There's nothing wrong with some changes to the appearance of the page that
can assist many users in their use of the page, as long as (a) they don't
cause problems for other users and (b) they aren't conveying meaningful
information that the user needs and that isn't being conveyed in any other
way.

For example, a hover effect is a usability booster for sighted people using
your usual graphical PC browsers; it doesn't cause any trouble, and if
you're using a tool that doesn't benefit from the effect, you still have the
usual means (whatever that may be for your software) of telling where the
links and buttons are.

Calling attention to a portion of your page through a blinking effect is
bad. Not only is it annoying, but at certain frequencies blinking can cause
problems for people with certain disorders.

Most appearance changes are accomplished using Javascript. You should
consider that many people aren't allowing Javascript to operate in their
browsers, or are using tools that don't even recognize Javascript. So if you
are using Javascript to provide feedback to people about where they are in a
process, for example, people without Javascript won't have any idea what's
going on unless there are other clues that suffice without the extra help
provided by the Javascript.

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Heath wrote:
I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a browser to
redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or color
changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is this the
general concesus, or does common usage prevail?


I consider it bad form to change the size of elements on :hover or
:active, because, in some browser, it causes nearby elements to jump
around to make room for the changing size. Things I thus avoid:

a:hover {font-size: 110%;}
a:focus {border: 1px solid blue;}

Color changes, however, should be fine, assuming the contrast is
sufficient.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bt************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
| "Heath" <hj******@email.moc> wrote in message
| news:3f**********************@news.skynet.be...
| > I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a
browser to
| > redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or
color
| > changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is
this the
| > general concesus, or does common usage prevail?
|
| There's nothing wrong with some changes to the appearance of
the page that
| can assist many users in their use of the page, as long as (a)
they don't
| cause problems for other users and (b) they aren't conveying
meaningful
| information that the user needs and that isn't being conveyed
in any other
| way.

What about if? ...
(c) the change causes the page to reformat.
(eg 120x480.gif -> 600x120.gif)

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part>
wrote in message news:tfmKb.759836$Fm2.708325@attbi_s04...
| Heath wrote:
| > I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a
browser to
| > redraw the page after it has been loaded,
.....
| I consider it bad form to change the size of elements on :hover
or
| :active, because, in some browser, it causes nearby elements to
jump
| around to make room for the changing size.

Yep. That strikes the nail on the head, I
was trying to think of a better example
than 'images of different size'..

I find 'layout changes on mousepoint' very
confusing and it can make the page difficult
to use.

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Andrew Thompson" <an******@bigNOSPAMpond.com> wrote in message
news:er******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bt************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
| "Heath" <hj******@email.moc> wrote in message
| news:3f**********************@news.skynet.be...
| > I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a
browser to
| > redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or
color
| > changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is
this the
| > general concesus, or does common usage prevail?
|
| There's nothing wrong with some changes to the appearance of
the page that
| can assist many users in their use of the page, as long as (a)
they don't
| cause problems for other users and (b) they aren't conveying
meaningful
| information that the user needs and that isn't being conveyed
in any other
| way.

What about if? ...
(c) the change causes the page to reformat.
(eg 120x480.gif -> 600x120.gif)


I don't understand your example. Are you talking about reformatting a page
or changing an image size?

If the change is purely a visual effect, a change to some aspect of the
image someone without graphical capability wouldn't see in the first place,
then it's of no interest to that person that the image's size has been
changed. That information would be insignificant to them. So I don't see any
problem.

Or, do you mean that there's something like a photo gallery, where a person
can click a Next button, and have a series of images appear, one after the
other, in the same space on the page. But they're of different sizes, so the
text flow rewraps each time. In that case I don't see a *serious* problem,
but the rewrapping side effecct might be considered a nuisance. It would
probably be better to wrap the <img> tag inside a fixed-size <div>.

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bt************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Andrew Thompson" <an******@bigNOSPAMpond.com> wrote in message
news:er******************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bt************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
|
| "Heath" <hj******@email.moc> wrote in message
| news:3f**********************@news.skynet.be...
| > I was reading that it is considered bad form to require a
browser to
| > redraw the page after it has been loaded, ie image swaps or
color
| > changes using the pseudo-class a:active or a:hover, is is
this the
| > general concesus, or does common usage prevail?
|
| There's nothing wrong with some changes to the appearance of
the page that
| can assist many users in their use of the page, as long as (a)
they don't
| cause problems for other users and (b) they aren't conveying
meaningful
| information that the user needs and that isn't being conveyed
in any other
| way.

What about if? ...
(c) the change causes the page to reformat.
(eg 120x480.gif -> 600x120.gif)
I don't understand your example. Are you talking about reformatting a page
or changing an image size?

If the change is purely a visual effect, a change to some aspect of the
image someone without graphical capability wouldn't see in the first

place, then it's of no interest to that person that the image's size has been
changed. That information would be insignificant to them. So I don't see any problem.

Or, do you mean that there's something like a photo gallery, where a person can click a Next button, and have a series of images appear, one after the
other, in the same space on the page. But they're of different sizes, so the text flow rewraps each time. In that case I don't see a *serious* problem,
but the rewrapping side effecct might be considered a nuisance. It would
probably be better to wrap the <img> tag inside a fixed-size <div>.


I just read Brian's response, and I agree. Early on I tried using a hover
effect where the text became bold-faced, and that caused the screen to
shift. It *was* annoying! This falls under the category of "don't cause
problems for other users"--because it causes a problem for *most* users! So
don't do it.

Jul 20 '05 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.