6 ms·
In their examples, none of their buttons were actually buttons. Nor were they even links. They were all DIVs. This is pretty terrible HTML, for many reasons, es
by flyosity 13y ago
In their examples, none of their buttons were actually buttons. Nor were they even links. They were all DIVs. This is pretty terrible HTML, for many reasons, especially for accessibility.
- Scriptor 13y agoIt's also the exact opposite of semantic HTML as I understand it.
- nakovet 13y agoI really liked it visually speaking but yes, buttons implemented as divs it's sad.
- EGreg 13y agoAlthough it's sad, what's really sad is that buttons don't render consistently across browsers. I try to avoid buttons for that reason :(
- ricardobeat 13y agoTrapped in 1999? Buttons render ok since IE7/8.
- tomjen3 13y agoNo they don't. Apples buttons are round, ms buttons aren't.
- ricardobeat 13y agoThat's before you use appearance: none and normalize any styles, the subject is customizing with CSS.
- EGreg 13y agoThanks for the info! It's helpful ... but looks like IE and Opera still don't respect this.
- EGreg 13y agoNo they don't. On different browsers the padding is completely different, and on many browsers you can't even control it. And don't tell me "you don't need to control the padding of buttons."
- clukic 13y agoIt's a tag ambivalent CSS library. There's nothing sad about that. Just use buttons tags, it's not stopping you. Don't get hung up on the demo code.
- joesb 13y agoIt's a little concerning using library claims to be about "semantic" when the demo code doesn't even care about using the semantic tag for button. It makes you worried if the author actually knows what he's doing.
- tomjen3 13y agoNot any more. There are tags you can put on your markup that will tell screenreaders and other accessibility tools that this thing is a button, there is an entire set of aria roles and states for things like checkboxes, buttons and other ui objects so you aren't limited to the defaults provided by the various html standards.