I don't think it's within the scope of this issue to provide a better datepicker experience than native. It would be difficult enough to build or integrate a datepicker polyfill that matches the jQuery UI datepicker for features and is compatible with Drupal translation and - even better if it improves on the localization.

How to: Customizing and Theming jQuery UI Datepicker

I'm concerned that the poor native datepicker accessibility has derailed this issue, we should be focused on trying to replace the polyfill with something that has feature parity with jQuery UI datepicker. Bonus points if we can make it more accessible or tackle some of the existing datepicker issues at the same time. If we widen the scope of this issue to also replace all desktop and mobile?

If the native datepicker has a11y issues, that should not be Drupal core's problem to fix. Alternatively, we could open a follow up feature request that defines a plan for a different input for date fields, if we wanted to build something more custom like suggested in 17 , something like this prototype "smart" text field.

Regardless of how quickly or how well browsers are implementing the HTML5 spec, it would be a step back in my opinion to disable native datepickers, especially on mobile. If they have problems like their desktop counterparts, the custom datepicker will need to accommodate mobile users as well. I would argue that just getting to the baseline of what mobile native datepickers do now touch events, voice over, localization would be a huge effort, let alone improving on them, or fixing the very specific a11y shortcomings.

I think that should be the scope of this issue- replacing that datepicker for those browsers. I am really impressed with the start bnjmnm made in 18 , not only does it work and look decent, but it simplifies localization. It also has built in locales including not just translation but date formats. It might be good to start from a project that has more hours already put into it, but if we use any other library we will still need to write custom code like the locale.

I was very against the idea of "rolling our own" datepicker calendar until I saw It might be simpler to write our own versus taking an existing library and working with its API- as long as we limited the scope and don't need to fully replicate the features of jQuery UI datepicker. I can follow that reasoning if there was a clearly great, low-effort, low-risk datepicker readily available.

I agree. Again, if it would've been low-risk, I would've been fine with it. But we're under a lot of time pressure, and the goal is to "remove jQuery UI risk and not regress", not "remove jQuery UI risk and improve". Let's not forget we're not doing this with the explicit goal to reduce the risk of Drupal 9's external dependencies! It seems the direction of 25 at the start is very different than at the end :D. It sounds like you had concerns similar to what I wrote in my previous bullet and then you just got convinced by bnjmnm's PoC in 18? Are you saying that you believe we should pursue 18?

1. jQuery UI’s Datepicker Styled for Mobile

Are you saying we should make 18 run everywhere, or only where no native datepicker is available? I was surprised and impressed that 18 produced a working datepicker, but I wasn't convinced it should be used instead of a native datepicker. I think 18 might be a simple way to make a Drupal friendly datepicker that doesn't have any dependencies, and which wouldn't require additional processing- for example to make translations work. Currently the locale module uses the jquery.

Sorry for not being more clear- I am opposed to overriding the native datepicker in any browser, desktop or mobile. I thought 18 could be a promising polyfill replacement. I didn't do a real code review since it was a prototype, but in 25 I pointed out 2 parts that I disagreed with:. Well said! I found a lot of the a11y research very interesting but I think any broader change to how Drupal treats date inputs is out of the scope of this issue.

I know bnjmnm will be back from vacation on Monday. Let's see what he has to say : Hopefully some JS maintainers will also have left feedback by then. I support the idea that we only provide the datepicker as a polyfill. It's great if we can find something that is more accessible than native datepickers. There's nothing preventing us from making it the default in a follow-up. I'm not too excited about maintaining our own datepicker but if that seems like the best solution, and the JavaScript subsystem maintainers agree on that, we probably should go with that.

Any thoughts on marking it as internal so that it's not designed to be an API for the contrib? It's only designed to act as a polyfill for core.

• download yahoo mail utk blackberry?
• Pickadate.js?
• telenet mail instellen iphone 5?
• jQuery UI 1.12!
• Introduction!

It would be great to get feedback from the product managers on what they think about this. I guess my opinion is it's unfortunate that native datepickers have so many accessibility issues, but I don't really see that this is a "bug" for Drupal to fix. It would help a lot though if the issue summary were updated prior to asking for PM sign-off with what the actual proposal is here; I'm going by the few most recent comments Do we want to provide a polyfill for date inputs to browsers that don't support it natively?

I just want to make it clear, that we are potentially making a significant investment to a fairly small proportion of the user base. If we choose not to provide date picker polyfill, we could do it gracefully in the sense that we could provide help text that describes how the field is supposed to be filled similar to what the gov. Ah, I wasn't able to compute this number because I wasn't sure about the current browser support policy. I know that was agreed upon in the last few days, perhaps that allows you to compute this now.

In any case: a valuable addition to this issue! That means going with the patch in 3, which is what I argued we should consider a month ago, in 4. Of course, that's assuming that all users tend to have to enter dates, which is not at all true. I guess to answer that question It would depend on how passable it is. Screenshots of Chrome or something vs. If it's a single text field with no guidance as to what format to type in there to meet validation criteria, that's not.

The jQueryUI datepicker has good accessibility support. Replacing that with a different datepicker would result in diminished or completely broken screenreader and keyboard navigation support. I think it's better to provide those users with a different UI instead of a less functional version of something they're accustomed to working with. Some of the benefits of datepickers will be lost day of week, easy way to relate two dates, etc , but that still seems preferable to replacing an accessible datepicker with an inaccessible one.

jQuery Timepicker

Since we don't actually replace this with a new library or deprecate anything, this patch could be fine as a 9. The advantage would be that whatever the browser statistics are now, they'll likely be more favourable in June when 9. Definitely agreed a follow-up to improve accessibility and keep looking at alternatives would be good to do. Can you confirm that the following two steps are what you are proposing? For step 2: it could even be RTBC today against the 8. Wim Leers, yes I'm not saying that's the best option here, we might want to commit the change to 8.

One issue working against that, is that we'd have to skip the deprecation notice for jquery. Can I flag that we still need some screenshots here to understand the UX impact of that suggestion? This is the screenshot from 3 , with that patch, this is what would appear on browsers that don't have native datepickers. Here's an updated version of patch 3 that passes tests. I also did this for drupal. I still think it's good to have the description text below the fields so it's always visible, but additional help is a good call particularly since it isn't the most visually pleasant experience.

My first thought was to use the title attribute, which includes formatting information, but that extends the width of the inputs and I'm wary of conditionally messing with widths as those are among the few inputs that can reliably be counted on to be a specific length. This is what it looked like. I'm sure it's possible to wrangle more information in there and have it be visible by messing with font size, provided it doesn't impact the native datepicker experience.

I'd be interested in opinions on that. The last submitted patch, I would think the placeholder text should be identical to what a user puts in - i. If we did this then width of the form elements won't be an issue. The description is still there below.

Free jQuery Date Picker Plugins

What catch said : But 51 already did that, yay! I could only find nits, so this is now hard-blocked on subsystem maintainer review. It'd have been a nit before, but now it's a bug, since this is the only thing I could find that would block a commit. Actually, a change record is missing, and the issue summary could use an update. It should include before vs after screenshots to make it easier for a core committer to assess. Even though this is technically not part of that module, that module is most strongly affected.

To be really honest, I really question whether there is a true need for a JQuery UI style datepicker in core. Text-based inputs are great when you know exactly what date you want to enter. JS can improve the experience the inputs on Ancestry. I am on board with removing this from core and leaving it to contrib to give users options to fit their need rather than us guessing.

• Date Range Picker.
• nokia 220 price in india flipkart?
• Date Range Picker — JavaScript Date & Time Picker Library.
• cool ipad shooting games free.
• sony ericsson xperia x10 mobile network state disconnected?