[dialog] Initially-open non-modal dialogs

[lukewarlow]

trafficstars

The question around deprecating of non-modal non-popover dialogs got me thinking.

If we deprecated show() would we also deprecate <dialog open>?

What would <dialog popover open> do?

[lukewarlow]

If we don't allow initially open non-modal popover dialogs then does that limit the idea of deprecating non-modal non-popover dialogs? Would it just be removing the show method but not the concept entirely?

[css-meeting-bot]

The Open UI Community Group just discussed [dialog] Initially-open non-modal dialogs.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<masonf_> q?
<masonf_> q+
<keithamus> Luke_W: the issue around non-modal non-popover dialogs - aside from top-layer - is initially open. There are various patterns -e.g. cookie banners - that we don't have a pattern for. Should we design for this? Are we deprecating non-modal non-popover dialogs or just getting rid of .show()?
<keithamus> q+
<brecht_dr> q+
<keithamus> masonf_: deprecating doesn't mean removing, I imagine that'll be a very long time. So that's one important thing, we'll need to contend with it being there for a long time. The open attribute is not supported by dialog popover, debatable if we want to deprecate that either. It is possible to do this today, it just requires a script tag to toggle
<keithamus> open. Cookie banners already need scripting to tell if you've clicked the button so perhaps we don't need to cover those cases?
<masonf_> ack mason
<masonf_> ack keith
<masonf_> ack brecht
<keithamus> keithamus: does .show() just set `open` attribute? It doesn't run focussing steps does it?
<keithamus> masonf_: it does run focusing steps
<masonf_> q+
<keithamus> brecht_dr: initially open dialogs maybe arent the best to do a11y wise, but I do get a lot of questions about dialogs initially opening. It feels like a missed opportunity.
<keithamus> masonf_: I agree, I've heard it for popover as well. The question seems to be: can we deprecate this if this behaviour is missing? And Brecht is saying the missing behaviour is something desired? Perhaps we need to talk about that (in the open issue) before continuing with this issue.
<keithamus> Luke_W: Yes it's worth looking into again. I wasn't looking for a proposed resolution today but more to get some thoughts. I'll follow up in various issues.

[github-actions[bot]]

There hasn't been any discussion on this issue for a while, so we're marking it as stale. If you choose to kick off the discussion again, we'll remove the 'stale' label.