[whatwg] LABEL and radio/checkbox onclick

[Jim Ley]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:10:33 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>    Because otherwise part of the web page UI may behave in
> unpredictable ways, causing an author's custom UI work to fail on
> specific platforms.

So that's a good reason why not to create your own custom UI (example
from the non-web world, Mozilla got up to ~0.92 before it was usable
on my system because they chose different UI conventions incompatible
with one of the GUI configurations - X-Mouse on win and their top
menus)

> > One of the main reasons I choose my platform is how the GUI
> > acts, and if I cannot configure it to work as I am used to, I will not
> > use that platform, I cannot use the mac system
> 
>    You're going to stop using Macs because you can click the label in
> order to gain control focus?

no, because the totality of it's different UI to what I'm used to. 
Although with OS-X I may well be able to use a different WM anyway)

> > (I'm not trained on it - mind you without a nipple, there's no way I
> > can buy a mac anyway)
> 
> ???

Prettu much what it says - I can only use a nipple and not a trackpad,
iBooks don't come with nipples.

>    Why can't the expect the phone and the PC to behave the same when
> rendering the same markup and styling?

That's not what we were discussing, we're discussing interaction
behaviour, and obviously a phone with no pointing device is going to
be different to a system with a mouse.

>    By this reasoning, specifications should use the lowest common
> denominator of OS behavior only, or not specify behavior at all. 

The latter, just like HTML shouldn't require a rendering for its elements.

> You want clicking the label to be
> treated as a click on the checkbox because the checkbox is such a small
> target to hit with your mouse that it becomes a usability issue.

But that doesn't need to be specified, as you say it's a usability
issue, but that just means no UA developer is going to do it, as their
UA won't be usable.

Jim.