[WSG] flat form with check boxes [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2011-09-11 Thread Chris Vickery
Hi all,
We've got some flat forms on our site, ie. They are not interactive forms, and 
have no submit button. They are indicating that it's a check list that can be 
ticked once the page is printed.

Someone suggested putting in regular check boxes and having no submit button, 
but wouldn't that make it confusing from both and accessibility and usability 
point of view?
At the same time using a graphical or styled element with Alt tag seems messy 
and cringe worthy as a work around.

I've got my own ideas, but what does everyone think is best practice in this 
case?

Regards,
Chris


**
WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email
in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you 
notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, 
together with any attachments.
**


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Re: [WSG] flat form with check boxes [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2011-09-11 Thread Joshua Street
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Chris Vickery
chris.vick...@oaic.gov.au wrote:
 We’ve got some flat forms on our site, ie. They are not interactive forms,
 and have no submit button. They are indicating that it’s a check list that
 can be ticked once the page is printed.

Hi Chris,

Can you use a print stylesheet to change the appearance of the
checkboxes slightly in screen view, and make the checkboxes
'disabled'? Or do you expect users will check boxes then print the
form out (similar to many PDF forms?)

 Someone suggested putting in regular check boxes and having no submit
 button, but wouldn’t that make it confusing from both and accessibility and
 usability point of view?

FWIW, I think offline forms are confusing from an
usability/accessiblity point of view! ... but I suspect that, as we're
having this conversation at all, there's no real alternative here.

Cheers,

Josh


-- 
Josh Street

http://josh.st/
+61 (0) 425 808 469


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***



Re: [WSG] flat form with check boxes [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

2011-09-11 Thread Joseph Ortenzi
Hi Chris
Let me recap to make sure I get this. Pardon me if I miss the mark.

The web page is flat HTML and it has checkboxes, so that were someone to print 
the page, they would use those checkboxes to mark with a pen.
The checkboxes have no purpose online, as you can't submit their information 
with a submit button.
Content on the page includes text, which, when printed, makes sense alongside 
the checkboxes.

You're concerned about accessibility, rightly, since you have form elements 
without a form. but also from a Standards viewpoint, I hope, since there are 
form elements but no means or reason to submit them.

Can I ask, what is the point of the page? it might help contextualise the 
response.

My initial question is why, since the checkboxes are to be used in that way, 
they cannot be graphical, or, conversely, why not allow users to fill in the 
form and turn your submit action into a print action, thus potentially covering 
both accessibility and standards compliance?

J

On 12/09/2011, at 14:57 , Chris Vickery wrote:

 Hi all,
 We’ve got some flat forms on our site, ie. They are not interactive forms, 
 and have no submit button. They are indicating that it’s a check list that 
 can be ticked once the page is printed.
  
 Someone suggested putting in regular check boxes and having no submit button, 
 but wouldn’t that make it confusing from both and accessibility and usability 
 point of view?
 At the same time using a graphical or styled element with Alt tag seems messy 
 and cringe worthy as a work around.
  
 I’ve got my own ideas, but what does everyone think is best practice in this 
 case?
  
 Regards,
 Chris
 
 **
 WARNING: The information contained in this email may be confidential.
 If you are not the intended recipient, any use or copying of any part
 of this information is unauthorised. If you have received this email
 in error, we apologise for any inconvenience and request that you 
 notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this email, 
 together with any attachments.
 **
 
 
 ***
 List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
 Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
 ***


=
This email is: [ ] bloggable[x] ask first[ ] private
=

http://about.me/joe.ortenzi





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***