Comments on: Input Replacement : Replace Defult Input Style with Customized Skin / Text

by: Leslie Marshall

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:39:55 +0000

Interested in knowing if you have a solution for rendering buttons correctly when they are disabled.

by: hedgerwang

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:04:22 +0000

hi, I’d love to know which browser is not working?

by: werbeagentur

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:20:46 +0000

Interesting method - but not working on all browsers.

by: Saz

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:12:38 +0000

Hi,
I’d like to debate the accessibility of this method.
When you remove the CSS, it’s difficult to understand what’s going on.

Nice Site.

thanks.

by: Hedger

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:02:59 +0000

Hi, Pras:

Button is troublesome, it may work inconsistently across browsers.

For Internet Explorer, there’s an issue which people hate a lot, and here’s the documentation :http://www.peterbe.com/plog/button-tag-in-IE

and on Safari, even you place a BUTTON within a FORM, but BUTTON does not belong to the FORM collection :FORM.elements.

Most people use BUTTON simply for better control with visual treatment, and it turns out that the abusive use of IMG or TABLE may be implemented.

If visual design is not your concern, you should never use BUTTON for production.

I try to let people keep using INPUT[type=BUTTON] or INPUT[type=SUBMIT] with more flexible visual design control.

It’s the balance of visual design and implementation of good practice.

thanks.

by: Pras

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:00:11 +0000

Love your stuff Hedger. But I have to ask, what is wrong with using BUTTON tags and INPUT IMAGE tags especially if you’re using a non-rollover image?

How is this method better in terms of accessibility (comparing your method to BUTTON)?

One of the advantages that I see in your method is consistency across browsers. I use Camino for my browsing and a simple BUTTON tag will be rendered as a default glossy button even if there is a CSS background property. Your method seems to work fine in Camino, good stuff!