101–110 of 343 posts
yeah i can mark a field as numeric... but then when a phone renders the number only input all popular keyboards will also leave out every single clipboard buttons and helpers. url where you can also search if you type a phrase? too bad you just lost all typing correcting and prediction. it's lame and hopeless.
Last time I checked, web-browsers today still do not allow you to style the appearance of built-in HTML validation messages [1]; this wouldn't be so bad if Chrome (and Firefox) still conformed to their OS platform UI guidelines (i.e. so it looks system-generated, like how `title=""` tooltips used to be), instead Chrome uses this ugly yellow/orange icon color with black-text on a white background on a bubble with a fi…
Html form validation is great. There's just one gigantic catch: It doesn't work in Firefox for Android. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1510450
Firefox for Android has a smaller user base than Samsung Internet and Opera. It's 0.5%. It's a waste of time working on supporting it. Especially considering how little time people put into making sure their sites work for people using accessibility software. I don't think it's worth mentioning in these issues unless you're also ready to talk about UC Browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, what browser functionality are we talking about? Even this form validation has to be implemented; I don't think I've ever even seen it in the wild. What percentage of websites are rolling their own functionality instead of using any one of the various library and framework that do this better? There is no way that every single browser is going to implement some high-level feature in a satisfactory and f…
As a user, I want common UI controls to look and behave the same way across all web sites. Ideally, across all applications on my OS, but that's also a lost cause. POLA[1]. I can accept if the developer wants to somehow extend an existing control to support something new, but it's so irritating when they just re-implement their own thing entirely because they think their ideas are better than the browser's. Multiply…
That ship has sailed. (and I wish it had not)
> Everyone's site looks and feels inconsistent with every other site.
Somehow, this model won. Most people muddle through and figure it all out...
There’s a reason it’s heavily underused. So many frameworks and libraries provide robust, style-able validation capabilities, some with very sophisticated and extendable functionality. Don’t torture yourself if you don’t have to.
We try to use browsers standard features whenever possible. Despite looking into using the built-in validation, it's never been worthwhile. Too many gotchas, and we end up using a library to be able to easily support more complex checks anyway.
Furthermore, using a library opens up, in some cases, the possibility of sharing some of the validation code between front and backend.
In particular this article seems to work around one of the issues with `useLayoutEffect`. Not something that should be done lightly.
In an all honest reply, is that the people that writes these specifications, live disconnected from the reality, they don't use the stuff they specify. That stuff works for very simple things, but then when your forms evolve you realise you will be better off just writing the whole thing yourself.
Yep. This is great until you need a cross-browser date picker, at which point you need to implement a bunch of stuff yourself. It’s frustrating how primitive HTML forms are, after so many years.
Last time I checked, web-browsers today still do not allow you to style the appearance of built-in HTML validation messages [1]; this wouldn't be so bad if Chrome (and Firefox) still conformed to their OS platform UI guidelines (i.e. so it looks system-generated, like how `title=""` tooltips used to be), instead Chrome uses this ugly yellow/orange icon color with black-text on a white background on a bubble with a fi…
[flagged]
To clarify my position: I agree that UAs should be free to show validation messages as-appropriate for the user (I.e. those popover hints) but it is because Google decided to stylise them with a very specific aesthetic/design - as opposed to trying to fit-in to the host system - it clashes more. Now, I’m not suggesting that the UA popovers be fully CSS-able, but I would like to see some kind of coarse-grain control “hint” properties - just like we have with (non-WebKit-prefixed) scrollbars, , most types, and more besides. The issue here is that the validation popovers are almost uniquely exempt from styling compared to all other HTML platform features (the only other exception being `title=“”` tooltips, AFAIK).
By-comparison, this is kinda like the (still) half-broken support for dark-mode: if a page is dark-themed you (probably) don’t want nuclear-flash-white UA-provided popovers stinging your eyes because there’s no validation-popover background color hint. Similarly, supposing my website makes tasteful use of serif typefaces - but the input validation popovers will be in Chrome’s own Material-design sans-serif font, while OS/platform widgets will be in some third other font by-default but can generally still be set via CSS. If you’re on HN then you’re likely bothered by inappropriate mixing of serif and sans-serif typefaces, so I hope you can sympathise.
The biggest, easiest to implement underutilization is: "Using specific type attribute values, such as "email", "number", or "url"" These can significantly improve user experience on mobile by triggering the optimal keyboard.
Unfortunately the number input is lacking and inconsistent. We’ve always fallen back to JavaScript validation.
I'm trying to picture a room full of people developers agreeing letters are numbers too!
Lets give the little people a slider but lets call it a range!
I really feel like they are trolling.
You start with a neat database table then you engage in an endless struggle trying to allow the user to edit a single row of it. It really feels like you are not suppose to do it. As if it was intended to be as annoying as possible.
The biggest, easiest to implement underutilization is: "Using specific type attribute values, such as "email", "number", or "url"" These can significantly improve user experience on mobile by triggering the optimal keyboard.
It’s amazing how many login forms are labeled “email” and then don’t have the correct type set.