I don't have a problem with this idea in a UI/UX way.. I can see it
works, however keep in mind that there are millions of people not
using Apple or iPhone/iOS related products. Apple's share in the phone
market is still small. So always keep your target audience in
mind.. :) maybe it's not worth putting the time in this, however it's
a good exercise nevertheless

Anyway- bit busy, so no time to code.. perhaps OverText can be used as
a base like you originally started out with, or a placeholder plugin
with some added fx would be something to try.

On Sep 30, 6:49 pm, Quentin <[email protected]> wrote:
> All this is interesting!
> I was thinking about using OverText (or a variation of it) for my  
> comment form, displaying the inputs' labels above the inputs to save  
> space... I don't think such a form needs dummy values or hints about  
> what is expected in the input (the labels might be enough) but I agree  
> some more complex forms (like a registration) could.
>
> As for the "fade" and "OverText visible on focus" debates, I agree  
> with Ryan and think Apple "educated" people with their iOS  
> implementation...
>
> JS for UX!
>
> Quentin •http://toki-woki.net
>
> On 30 sept. 2010, at 18:34, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Note that I don't really recommend overtext for labeling. It's  
> > better for hint text. For an email input, I'd still have a label  
> > that read "email:" and the over text hint would be "[email protected]" or  
> > whatever. The exception to this rule is search inputs and the like  
> > where there's one input and it's not about data entry so much.
>
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Ryan Florence  
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > There's this:
>
> >http://github.com/cpojer/mootools-form-placeholder
>
> > Pros: Uses native placeholder support when available
> > Cons: It alters the value of a form field for browser's that don't  
> > support placeholder.  If the script fails (cpojer assures us that he  
> > doesn't write code that fails) then there's a chance you'll get bad  
> > data.
>
> > That's why we have OverText.
>
> > Pros: It doesn't alter the value of a field and you can style it  
> > however you want (likehttp://me.com)
> > Cons: I dunno, some say it's nutty.
>
> > As for the whole "bad interface" argument of fading out the text,  
> > but keeping it visible until the user types, I have a few thoughts  
> > about that.
>
> > 1) Apple does it on me.com and it works great.
> > 2) The iPhone and iPad do it with nearly all form fields and iOS is  
> > arguably the most usable OS ever
> > 3) If the placeholder disappears and you provide no other label,  
> > then tabbing through a form is a horrible user experience.  You get  
> > to the next field and have no idea what you should put in it.  I  
> > know, I built software that did this and cursed the day a thousand  
> > times over.  The label should be visible when the field has focus
>
> > For search fields? Placeholders are great, for a full blown form,  
> > you have to have the label visible when the user is focused, so  
> > either ditch the whole placeholder idea or implement it the way  
> > Apple has.  Focus fades the label, typing removes it.
>
> > > Starting with full opacity text does not tell me it will go away.  
> > Fading
> > > the text out but leaving it on onFocus makes me want to delete it  
> > myself -
> > > cannot anticipate you will do that for me.
>
> > Admittedly, I did this the first time at me.com.  But after one use,  
> > I understood how it worked.  Everybody I know with mobile me seem to  
> > log in just fine.
>
> > On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Dimitar Christoff wrote:
>
> > >> You're right, I will consider this!
> > >> Thanks.
>
> > >> I will try to post what I came up with...
>
> > > here's what I came up with when tackling this before...
>
> > >http://jsfiddle.net/hFtNd/1/light/
>
> > > and i forgot to mention, this is not that i don't like and  
> > appreciate
> > > the complexity of what you have done - and i do believe people do  
> > learn
> > > and adapt for the most part.
>
> > > it was simply a case of missing the forset for the tree, that's  
> > all :)
>
> > > Best regards
> > > --
> > > Dimitar Christoff <[email protected]>
>
> > > blog:http://fragged.org/ twitter: @D_mitar

Reply via email to