File input problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Help with a Table Wanted
Next: background shorthand
From: Mark Smith on 8 Dec 2009 11:24 On Dec 8, 4:06 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 10:49 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> > wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > Good. Leave it alone. You have no idea how wide the button needs to > > > be. The UA does. ;) > > > Lets just do away with styling all together then. Just serve raw text > > - let the UA decide how it should look. > > Raw text? Are you starting a new discussion? > > No, just following your logic to it's twisted conclusion. > > > > > > > Best not to use border and padding to style my inputs? Ha, thats > > > > funny, you must have very undemanding clients. > > > > You are supposed to be the expert. You have to explain to clients > > > what is practical and what is not. > > > Despite that we 'experts' know that functionality and appearance are > > two seperate things. Form elements with differently sized, differently > > styled inputs just looks bad and unprofessional. > > No, using bizarre hacks to try to force the issue is unprofessional. > Professionals know what is practical. If it looks "bad" (to you), > that's too bad. > It's better than dictating your clients requirements to them. > > > > Leaving everything unstyled as you are recommending does not look very > > 'Web 2.0'. > > I didn't recommend "leaving everything unstyled". You told me to leave with width alone, "the user agent knows best". FF leaves the field fixed at 195px. Nomatter what style you put on it. That is certainly not wide enough for most file paths and definitely not best for this page. > > > > > > My iphone handles these attributes fine btw. > > > > So? All you can do is make the buttons harder to identify and > > > possibly harder to touch. > > > This is a red herring, we have a seperate front end for mobile users. > > Of course you do. ;) Yes. Highly cut down. You can't upload files from most mobile platforms anyway. If you want to point your phone to a front end designed for a desktop - do it, but don't compain it it doesn't look great on your tiny screen.
From: Jonathan N. Little on 8 Dec 2009 11:25 David Mark wrote: > On Dec 8, 9:15 am, "Jonathan N. Little"<lws4...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Mark Smith wrote: >>> I didn't see anyone advocate jQuery, your anti jquery rant just seemed >>> out of context. >> >>> Glad you got it off your chest though. ;) >> >> Rant? Try asking about the virtues of JQuery in alt.comp.lang.javascript >> to the folks that really deal with JavaScript and you will get a >> detailed and spirited dissertation on what is the problem with JQuery. > > The folks that really deal with JS are exclusively in the alt branch? Nope, I just flubbed up not noticing the cross-post...maybe time for another cup of coffee... -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
From: David Mark on 8 Dec 2009 11:29 On Dec 8, 11:24 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 4:06 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 8, 10:49 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> > > wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Good. Leave it alone. You have no idea how wide the button needs to > > > > be. The UA does. ;) > > > > Lets just do away with styling all together then. Just serve raw text > > > - let the UA decide how it should look. > > > Raw text? Are you starting a new discussion? > > No, just following your logic to it's twisted conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > Best not to use border and padding to style my inputs? Ha, thats > > > > > funny, you must have very undemanding clients. > > > > > You are supposed to be the expert. You have to explain to clients > > > > what is practical and what is not. > > > > Despite that we 'experts' know that functionality and appearance are > > > two seperate things. Form elements with differently sized, differently > > > styled inputs just looks bad and unprofessional. > > > No, using bizarre hacks to try to force the issue is unprofessional. > > Professionals know what is practical. If it looks "bad" (to you), > > that's too bad. > > It's better than dictating your clients requirements to them. > > > > > > Leaving everything unstyled as you are recommending does not look very > > > 'Web 2.0'. > > > I didn't recommend "leaving everything unstyled". > > You told me to leave with width alone, "the user agent knows best". The width is not everything. And I don't think that's a _direct_ quote, is it? > > FF leaves the field fixed at 195px. Nomatter what style you put on it. Leaves what field at 195px in what mode and on what PC? > That is certainly not wide enough for most file paths and definitely > not best for this page. I was referring to the width of buttons. > > > > > > > > My iphone handles these attributes fine btw. > > > > > So? All you can do is make the buttons harder to identify and > > > > possibly harder to touch. > > > > This is a red herring, we have a seperate front end for mobile users. > > > Of course you do. ;) > > Yes. Highly cut down. You can't upload files from most mobile > platforms anyway. And why did you have to cut it down? Because it was bloated with dubious scripts. It's a very common problem that leads to two sites where one would suffice. ;) > > If you want to point your phone to a front end designed for a desktop > - do it, but don't compain it it doesn't look great on your tiny > screen. My phone? I guess you've never used it. And you don't design front- ends exclusively for desktops (that's your other problem).
From: Mark Smith on 8 Dec 2009 11:47 On Dec 8, 4:29 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > FF leaves the field fixed at 195px. Nomatter what style you put on it. > > Leaves what field at 195px in what mode and on what PC? FF 3.5.5, on XP. Default settings. Though judging by the age of the bug report linked to by Michael, it will happen on a few other versions as well... > > > That is certainly not wide enough for most file paths and definitely > > not best for this page. > > I was referring to the width of buttons. > Then you where changing the topic - again. We where talking about the lack of css support for the FILE INPUT element. > > > > Yes. Highly cut down. You can't upload files from most mobile > > platforms anyway. > > And why did you have to cut it down? Because it was bloated with > dubious scripts. It's a very common problem that leads to two sites > where one would suffice. ;) > .... > > My phone? I guess you've never used it. And you don't design front- > ends exclusively for desktops (that's your other problem). I guess you know better than the people behind a few little web sites like , Google, MSN, Amazon, Ebay... etc, all of which have seperate front ends designed specifically for mobile devices.
From: David Mark on 8 Dec 2009 11:59
On Dec 8, 11:47 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 4:29 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > FF leaves the field fixed at 195px. Nomatter what style you put on it.. > > > Leaves what field at 195px in what mode and on what PC? > > FF 3.5.5, on XP. Default settings. Though judging by the age of the > bug report linked to by Michael, it will happen on a few other > versions as well... Okay. > > > > > > That is certainly not wide enough for most file paths and definitely > > > not best for this page. > > > I was referring to the width of buttons. > > Then you where changing the topic - again. I where (sic) what? As for padding and borders, leave them alone on _all_ input elements. That should be easy enough to remember. :) > > We where talking about the lack of css support for the FILE INPUT > element. Which is rendered as a *button* and a text input. > > > > > > > > Yes. Highly cut down. You can't upload files from most mobile > > > platforms anyway. > > > And why did you have to cut it down? Because it was bloated with > > dubious scripts. It's a very common problem that leads to two sites > > where one would suffice. ;) > > ... > > > My phone? I guess you've never used it. And you don't design front- > > ends exclusively for desktops (that's your other problem). > > I guess you know better than the people behind a few little web sites > like , Google, MSN, Amazon, Ebay... etc, all of which have seperate > front ends designed specifically for mobile devices. Why is it that those who have the most to learn always cite terrible decisions by large Websites as if they were gospel (thus learning nothing?) Google, MSN, Amazon, eBay. What a rogue's gallery that is. Copy their developers at your own risk. ;) And search the archive. We've discuseed - for example - Google's crappy sites to death. There's not a scintilla of evidence that anyone at Google knows the first thing about Web development. Advertising yes, Web sites no. Oh, but they are so successful! How much more successful would they be if they had competent developers? |