From: "Marty DeAngelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > We weren't thinking about using the asterisk to indicate the > optional fields - we were considering either having the big > "(Optional)" after the legend or maybe an alternate icon (I was leaning against that because who knows what an 'field optional' icon looks like?).
> My concern is that if 9 out of 10 items are required, then those 9 > red asterisks create more noise in the form. I would rather try to > call out the ONE field which isn't required but necessary to include, such as Apt # or Suite #. > Make sense? Sure. I'm OK with indicating the optional field with the text "(Optional)". Just one concern: it's not really about the number of required fields, it's the invasiveness of those fields and whether they are appropriate in the context. Sometimes you'll need more than merely an indication (or absence of it), you'll need a full explanation of (say) why a street address is required for a purely electronic transaction. If every field is appropriate, then indeed the red asterisks are more noise - although I'd consider replacing them with small, discreet body-font colour asterisks instead, for those web-savvy users who specifically look for such things. best, Caroline Jarrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07990 570647 Effortmark Ltd Usability - Forms - Content We have moved. New address: 16 Heath Road Leighton Buzzard LU7 3AB ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
