wet-boew-styleguide
wet-boew-styleguide copied to clipboard
wet-boew
Text editing effects: Inserted text: _ins_
On the Text editing effects: Inserted text page, would should remove the blurb about not using this element.
Compliance point(s): Do not use this feature It mimics the visual appearance of a link, which causes usability problems Non-links should not look like links
ins should be used if text was changed and inserted into a page. This is semantics and should be marked up properly.
If we have a problem with it's default look, we should be changing it in the CSS for WET but I wouldn't recommend changing the standard browser presentation of this element.
I would say to modify the existing blurb with a more useful information.
If we have a problem with it's default look, we should be changing it in the CSS for WET but I wouldn't recommend changing the standard browser presentation of this element.
I agree
For discussion
- How the world are using the
<ins>? - How they are styling it?
- What about the
<del>? - What about when
<ins>and<del>are used in a list or a table? (https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/edits.html#edits) - How current web site are implementing the W3C annotation spec into their webpage? (like Annotator project)
Note how opening an HTML doc in MS Word changes the styles of <ins> and <del> in the following image. Not only do they use the usual underlining and strikethrough, but they also colour the text to show that it's something different.
A background colour could also be used to ensure sufficient contrast. Of course, using green and red somewhere here comes to mind.
I've also seen a dotted underline used for <ins> to make it distinct from a link, and the text "(Updated)" or "(Updated 2017-05-19 08:33 EST)" placed after.
