3 ms·
My objection is more about making a button looking like a link, as in the linked StackOverflow answer. I stand by my post that this is wrong because you're subv
by ratww 6y ago
My objection is more about making a button looking like a link, as in the linked StackOverflow answer. I stand by my post that this is wrong because you're subverting user expectations and probably making life harder for everyone involved ("why am I tabbing to this, this is not a button... why can't I right click it... aaaaargh").
> But by that logic, nothing deserves to be a button because you could replace it with a page load + the desired effect.
Not really. For instance, for the downvote/upvote buttons (or links?) here I actually agree with mwcampbell, they should be buttons. I don't think my other answers don't apply to them, because they don't look like links anyway. They could even be submit buttons inside forms to keep the site working when JS is disabled.
And for the [-], couchand just suggested <details> and this is the correct answer for me now.
- SilasX 6y ago>My objection is more about making a button looking like a link, as in the linked StackOverflow answer. Oh, I agree on that point -- if it is legitimately a button, you should not make it look like a link. That's like you're trying to them into thinking the click will take them to a different page. (Among other problems.) It's just that the issue of handling the [-] collapse icon caused me to realize there could be a use under those constraints. >And for the [-], couchand just suggested <details> and this is the correct answer for me now. Ah, wasn't aware of that. That seems like a better approach.