Hi John and Mike,
Just a question please?
For simple forms, I really like the technique of separating Required from
Optional fields. Instead of dividing the form into two fieldsets
(Required/Optional) would it be semantically/accessibly correct to instead
use a header element (for example h4) to
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
This has been suggested already,
It's hard to keep track, at times.
but I don't think it's as clean as using legend.
But legend often doesn't work. For example:
Name:
Address (line 1):
Address (line 2):
City:
If we assume that both a name and a full address are
Frank Palinkas wrote:
For simple forms, I really like the technique
of separating Required from Optional fields.
Instead of dividing the form into two fieldsets
(Required/Optional) would it be
semantically/accessibly correct to instead
use a header element (for example h4) to
Mike, you're correct, at least with respect to JAWS. In 'forms mode' it will
only read links and form controls including their labels, legends and
contents. Two other aspects of behaviour that are worth mentioning are:
1. In 'virtual cursor mode' i.e. when not in 'forms mode', JAWS does not
read
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Some clients do not want [required on the end of each label], they
think it pollutes the visual.
Understandable - most people buy a design from a visual - not
actually using the product they are commissioning. This is a great
way to bring usability into the
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Some clients do not want [required on the end of each label], they
think it pollutes the visual.
I'm sure the origin of the asterisk to indicate required fields was
literally that of a footnote:
Name:*
Email:*
*
Paul Novitski wrote:
As Thierry indicates, the original rationale behind
this structure was undoubtedly simply to avoid
cluttering a form occupying limited real estate
with the word 'required' beside every required field.
That's why I like my technique of using fieldsets to group the
On Behalf Of Paul Novitski
All this makes me try to come up with a way to present the asterisks
as footnote indicators visually but not aurally. One could present
the asterisks as background images on the abbrev elements, but as
such they wouldn't scale. If they were scalable foreground
At 5/27/2007 11:41 AM, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
I like Mike's use of the legend element, but the problem I see with that
approach is that Required Contact Info is read before every single
label...
What if it were simply the word required?
pEnter your contact information:/p
On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller
The problem would then be how to mark this up:
* Required fields
As plain text it would make sense to the visual users as the referent
for the asterisks but would seem a bit nonsensical to listeners.
Perhaps, leave the asterisk as an asterisk
Paul Novitski wrote:
What if it were simply the word required?
pEnter your contact information:/p
fieldset
legendRequired:/legend
label for=nameName:br /
input type=text id=name name=name value= /
/label
Paul Novitski wrote:
fieldset
legendRequired:/legend
label for=nameName:br /
input type=text id=name name=name
value= /
/label
...
That would vocalize required name, required email address,
Mordechai Peller wrote:
Interesting; but what if you need (as is commonly
the case) non-required fields interspersed with
required ones?
Optional I suppose. Just group them accordingly using the technique.
fieldset
legendOptional:/legend
labelPhone
input [...] /
/label
On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller
Instead of using a legend, how's about:
label.required span {
position : absolute;
left : -px;
}
label class=requiredspanRequired/span...
This has been suggested already, but I don't think it's as clean as using
legend.
As a side note, I don't
But sometimes at least one phone number might be required but others are
optional (e.g. mobile, home, fax etc) - doesn't seem as logical to split
your phone number fields up into different groupings.
On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:26:31 +1000, Mike at Green-Beast.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Faulds wrote:
But sometimes at least one phone number might
be required but others are optional (e.g. mobile,
home, fax etc) - doesn't seem as logical to split
your phone number fields up into different
groupings.
Great point, John. That's a conundrum for sure. And it will happen, the
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
A likely candidate might be putting the word in the in the label.
which will bring us back to doe. doe a deer, a female deer [from the
sound of music]...
I said:
How about just including (required) on the end of each label,
Then, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Terrence Wood wrote:
Mike at Green-Beast.com wrote:
A likely candidate might be putting the
word in the in the label.
which will bring us back to doe. doe a deer,
a female deer [from the sound of music]...
I said:
How about just including (required) on the
end of each label,
Then,
On 28 May 2007, at 03:42:55, Terrence Wood wrote:
Then, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Some clients do not want this at all, they think it pollutes the
visual.
That's the trouble with this job: clients who won't listen to
professional advice. It makes me wonder what they think they're
paying
Hello Thierry,
What about marking up * used in forms with ABBR elements?
In your example you left the text instruction.
pFields marked with * (asterisk) are required./p
Thus I'd say further treatment is unnecessary. And if you change that by
removing the text instruction, there's no
On 26 May 2007, at 06:42:08, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
Yes, the second title attribute is missing because of a post of
yours in the
thread Acronym tag usage :)
:-)
I think however that, if you adopt this approach, this may be one of
those cases where it might make sense to expand the
On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com
What about marking up * used in forms with ABBR elements?
In your example you left the text instruction.
pFields marked with * (asterisk) are required./p
Thus I'd say further treatment is unnecessary. And if you change that
by
removing the text
most screen reader users don't expand abbreviations, they would
only get asterisk
spoken to them. They might wonder what its significance is.
Any user might wonder what an asterisk is for without instructional
text.
How about just including (required) on the end of each label, or
On Behalf Of Terrence Wood
most screen reader users don't expand abbreviations, they would only get
asterisk
spoken to them. They might wonder what its significance is.
Interesting. I used to think the same thing, but someone in a recent
thread told me:
On the other hand, screen-readers are
On 26 May 2007, at 05:05:33, Thierry Koblentz wrote:
What about marking up * used in forms with ABBR elements?
pPlease fill fields marked with * (required field)./p
label for=nameabbr title=required field*/abbr Name: ?
php echo
error(); ?
input type=text id=name name=name value= /
On Behalf Of Nick Fitzsimons
pPlease fill fields marked with * (required field)./p
label for=nameabbr title=required field*/abbr Name: ?
php echo
error(); ?
input type=text id=name name=name value= /
/label
label for=emailabbr*/abbr Email: ?php echo error(); ?
input
26 matches
Mail list logo
