Dean, on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 16:04 you wrote:
> The client determined the content of the form. Their purpose was to > *filter out* people who "wouldn't even attempt to fill it in". > As for those concerned about the single page issue, I see that as a > printed page paradigm. I see little cost/benefit to "turning pages" > and all the additional work (and expense) of carrying post arguments > backwards and forwards throughout all the case-switch cgi, vs. > scrolling up or down ...for the purpose of *this* form. If the > purpose of the form was merchandising, I would agree with the added > cost of the step by step "keep their short attention span occupied - > don't lose the sale" multi page approach. But that's not a printed > page paradigm, it's a "talk in short simple sentences" paradigm. Sorry but I can't follow your argumentation. The client determined the content of the form, but I agree with Peter that the designer has to adopt this "printed page" form for the web. It is a different paradigm and the user has different expectations when he faces a printed or a web-form. To be honest, I wouldn't fill in such a form too. If your client emphasizes such high standards of character and behavior, the corporate behavior of that institution should follow these standards too. And IMHO unusable forms are very poor behavior... It seems to me that it is your opinion that the client or the money you earn isn't worth the work you'd have when splitting this form into several pages. But I suppose you know, that there are some free frameworks for nearly every programming language, which will make your life a bit easier... > Seems to me we've just replaced spacer gifs with spacer divs. Yeah! But hopefully that will change soon... regards Martin ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
