RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 separate/identify the two areas? This would keep the form contained within one fieldset, generic to the form's identity? For example: /// form action= method=post id=enquiryform fieldset legendEnquiry Form a rel=help class=cshelp href=ContextSensitiveHelpExample.htm img class=helpicon alt=help icon title=Open context-sensitive help width=16 height=16 src=images/help_small.gif //a/legend h4 Required Fields:/h4 div label for=subject Subject: Select a subject./label select name=subject id=subject tabindex=1 option value=Select/option option value=Option 1Option 1/option option value=Option 2Option 2/option option value=Option 3Option 3/option /select label for=name Name: Enter your full name./label input type=text name=name id=name tabindex=2 / label for=email Email: Enter your email address./label input type=text name=email id=email tabindex=3 / label for=message Message: Enter your message./label textarea name=message id=message rows=6 cols=30 tabindex=4/textarea /div h4 Optional Fields:/h4 div label for=updates Updates: Check this box to receive updates. /label input type=checkbox name=updates id=updates value=n tabindex=5 / /div label input class=submit type=submit value=Submit this Enquiry tabindex=6 //label /fieldset /form Kind regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com Sent: Monday, 28 May, 2007 4:25 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields 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 frequency thereof is probably in proportion to a form's complexity. In the example you illustrate it might be okay to stick to the required/optional thing, like so. Enter contact info in the form below. fieldset legend: required label/input: name label/input: email label/input: phone fieldset legend: optional label/input: fax label/inout: web But I can definitely see instances where that just woudn't do and the logical groupings wouldn't allow such an easy solution. That's when we'd have to revisit one of the other methods we've been comtemplating I suppose, treating each occurence independantly unless a one-size-fits-all solution is found. A likely candidate might be putting the word in the in the label. fieldset legend: foo stuff label/input: required foo one label/input: optional foo two label/input: required foo red label/input: optional foo blue :-) Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 required, as is often the case, it is also often the case that not all the lines available for the address are required. the above snippet would require multiple fieldsets. As a side note, I don't think we'd need to use a class if we consider that only the required fields would have a label containing a span. Including the class in the tag allows for making the required fields visually different (ie, red text). Also, it's very possible that other spans may be present (ie, error text, further instructions, etc.). *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 separate/identify the two areas? Even though officially it is not, I sort of think of a legend as a heading -- a specialized, single purpose form-section heading, if you will. I like your idea, but those headings might be skipped in the user has a screen reader in form's mode ... I think (someone please confirm). If this is indeed a fact, some users would miss them which might confuse the form's use even more. Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 the legend when it reads each label in the fieldset. It only does this in 'forms mode' 2. Not all screen readers have a separate mode for interacting with forms. FireVox is one such product. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike at Green-Beast.com Sent: 28 May 2007 12:16 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields 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 separate/identify the two areas? Even though officially it is not, I sort of think of a legend as a heading -- a specialized, single purpose form-section heading, if you will. I like your idea, but those headings might be skipped in the user has a screen reader in form's mode ... I think (someone please confirm). If this is indeed a fact, some users would miss them which might confuse the form's use even more. Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 conversation by talking about how frustrating it is when you make a mistake filling in forms, and what the client can do to help their customers avoid a frustrating experience. kind regards, Terrence Wood. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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:*
* Required field
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.
However, it would be clumsy and irritating to mark this up so that
each asterisk were literally a hyperlink that jumped to the footnote
explaining that it was required.
At the same time, the word 'required' (at least in English) is so
short that I don't think its repetition would be irritating on an
aural page (which I suppose might be just my lack of sensitivity as
I'm not a screen reader user).
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 images,
they'd need an alt:
img src=asterisk.jpg alt=required class=required /
img.required {width: 1em;}
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.
Musingly,
Paul
__
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 required inputs. It serves the purpose, doesn't clutter, and doesn't rely on symbolism (and extra mark-up to make said symbolism more accessible). fieldset legendRequired Contact Info:/legend label for=nameEnter your full name:br / input type=text id=name name=name value= / /label label for=emailEnter your email address:br / input type=text id=email name=email value= / /label /fieldset fieldset legendOptional Contact Info:/legend label for=phoneEnter your phone number:br / input type=text id=phone name=phone value= / /label label for=urlEnter your web site address:br / input type=text id=url name=url value=http://; / /label /fieldset Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 images,
they'd need an alt:
img src=asterisk.jpg alt=required class=required /
img.required {width: 1em;}
The problem would then be how to mark this up:
* Required fields
You're right, that's tricky, but the image idea is interesting.
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...
So what about going with something *very simple*, just using an em for
example:
Required fields are displayed in italic span class=pa(read with
emphasis)/span.
.pa { position:absolute;left:-px }
label for=emailemEmail/em:/label
input type=text id=email name=email value= /
English is not my native language so I'm sure the wording could be improved
to makes sense in IE, JAWS, LYNX but that would be the idea. Then we could
abandon the meaningless spans used within the labels.
Would that make sense? The issue of course would be to make *sure*
screen-reader users get the info line. Anything special that can be used
when the cursor goes into form mode?
---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 fieldset legendRequired:/legend label for=nameName:br / input type=text id=name name=name value= / /label ... That would vocalize required name, required email address, required password, etc. That doesn't seem so egregious to me, and all of the suggestions of adding a required markup to each input field will surely produce at least that much baggage to the aural experience. (I've shortened Mike's suggested labels, e.g. Enter your full name to simply Name. Doesn't the aural user agent make it amply clear that this is a form and that each input field is an input field? On that assumption I wouldn't consider it necessary to repeat Enter your each time, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.) Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 and mark it up as such: pdfn*/dfn Required fields/p Nice --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 ... That would vocalize required name, required email address, required password, etc. Oh, Paul, you da man. I do like that suggestion very much. It is aurally perfect (a lot less wordy) and visually precise. Very good! Cheers. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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,
required password, etc.
Interesting; but what if you need (as is commonly the case) non-required
fields interspersed with required ones?
Instead of using a legend, how's about:
label.required span {
position : absolute;
left : -px;
}
label class=requiredspanRequired/span...
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 labelWeb site input [...] / /label /fieldset In a new fieldset grouping optional inputs. Cheers. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 think we'd need to use a class if we consider that only
the required fields would have a label containing a span.
labelspanRequired/span...
label span {...}
---
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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: 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 labelWeb site input [...] / /label /fieldset In a new fieldset grouping optional inputs. Cheers. Mike Cherim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 frequency thereof is probably in proportion to a form's complexity. In the example you illustrate it might be okay to stick to the required/optional thing, like so. Enter contact info in the form below. fieldset legend: required label/input: name label/input: email label/input: phone fieldset legend: optional label/input: fax label/inout: web But I can definitely see instances where that just woudn't do and the logical groupings wouldn't allow such an easy solution. That's when we'd have to revisit one of the other methods we've been comtemplating I suppose, treating each occurence independantly unless a one-size-fits-all solution is found. A likely candidate might be putting the word in the in the label. fieldset legend: foo stuff label/input: required foo one label/input: optional foo two label/input: required foo red label/input: optional foo blue :-) Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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: Some clients do not want this at all, they think it pollutes the visual. kind regards, Terrence Wood. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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, Thierry Koblentz wrote: Some clients do not want this at all, they think it pollutes the visual. Hello Terrence, Yep. That's why I preceded that with: That's when we'd have to revisit one of the other methods we've been contemplating I suppose. If that's the client's request it'd be time to wear one of the two hats we are forced to put on sometimes: 1) Wizard hat to figure out the best way deal with the situation at hand. 2) Salesman hat to convince the client of the benefits of usability and accessibility. Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 for in the first place :-) I wonder how they treat their dentists... Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 guarantee the user will get the expansion. In fact, if what I understand is correct in that most screen reader users don't expland abbreviations, they would only get asterisk spoken to them. They might wonder what its significance is. Then again, and this may be a dangerous assumption on anyone's part, one might argue that an asterisk within a form label means that it is required and that this is a given... that everyone knows it. Or do they? :-/ --- As an aside, if something of this sort was a viable solution, I would lean towards using the defining instance element, DFN, to mark this up. dfn title=Require field*/dfn But the same issue applies to DFN as it pertains to the expansion of titles -- I think. That's my two cents, anyway. I'll be interested in what others have to say about this. Cheers. Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 abbreviation on every occurrence. (As the number of qualifying modifiers in that sentence probably reveals, I'm not sure.) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 instruction, there's no guarantee the user will get the expansion. In fact, if what I understand is correct in that most screen reader users don't expland abbreviations, they would only get asterisk spoken to them. They might wonder what its significance is. Hi Mike, That's not what I understood from a recent discussion, I think they'd have to listen to every expansion. Also, if I left the instruction and provide expansion at the same time it is because a user could get to the form control through an accesskey, thus skipping that paragraph. And if I went with the expansion using title only (no plain text) then sighted keyboard users would get nothing. As a side note, I still do *not* understand why it is not *required* to do the expansion in plain text... As a side note #2, I listened to Joe Clark yesterday and I believe he said we should not even bother! As an aside, if something of this sort was a viable solution, I would lean towards using the defining instance element, DFN, to mark this up. dfn title=Require field*/dfn But the same issue applies to DFN as it pertains to the expansion of titles -- I think. That's my two cents, anyway. I'll be interested in what others have to say about this. I don't think that would work. The specs say: The dfn element contains the defining instance of the enclosed term. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#sec_9.4. So you could not mark it up like this, it would have to be within the text that defines it. At least that's how I understand it. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 grouping the required fields in a 'Required' fieldset? kind regards Terrence Wood. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 generally configured by default to always read out the expansion of text marked up as an abbreviation (that is, the contents of the title attribute), so using abbr (or the non-standard acronym) repeatedly will force users of such assistive technologies to listen to the full version on every occurrence in the page. From what I've heard, this gets irritating pretty quickly, and could be seen as diminishing the accessibility of the page. So what's the real deal? Any user might wonder what an asterisk is for without instructional text. I'd think the expansion in plain text *and* in the first occurrence of the ABBR should be enough no? How about just including (required) on the end of each label, Some clients do not want this at all, they think it pollutes the visual. But an easy way to make every body happy is to go with: * span(required field)/span and shoot the span off screen. or grouping the required fields in a 'Required' fieldset? As long as the grouping makes sense, I think it's a good approach. --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
I saw Dan Cederholm's presentation at the @media conference in San Francisco yesterday. I took a look at the markup of a one page web site he created for the purpose of the presentation and noticed that he marked up a 4 star image like this: abbr class=rating title=4 img alt= src=img/icon-4stars.gif/ /abbr What about marking up * used in forms with ABBR elements? I mean (using Mike's code from another thread), we'd replace this: pFields marked with * (asterisk) are required./p label for=namespan*/span Name: ?php echo error(); ? input type=text id=name name=name value= / /label With this: 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 type=text id=email name=email value= / /label Would that make sense? --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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= / /label label for=emailabbr*/abbr Email: ?php echo error(); ? input type=text id=email name=email value= / /label It makes sense to me, assuming that the second abbr (the one for the email field) is missing a title attribute, and ought to be the same as the first one. (transposed from original position:) I saw Dan Cederholm's presentation at the @media conference in San Francisco yesterday. Have you asked Dan about it? He doesn't bite, as far as I've seen :-) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields
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 type=text id=email name=email value= / /label It makes sense to me, assuming that the second abbr (the one for the email field) is missing a title attribute, and ought to be the same as the first one. Yes, the second title attribute is missing because of a post of yours in the thread Acronym tag usage :) (transposed from original position:) I saw Dan Cederholm's presentation at the @media conference in San Francisco yesterday. Have you asked Dan about it? He doesn't bite, as far as I've seen :-) No, and I regret now... --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
