RE: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields

2007-05-28 Thread Steve Green
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

2007-05-28 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
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

2007-05-28 Thread Mordechai Peller

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

2007-05-28 Thread Frank Palinkas
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:

///



Enquiry Form 


Required Fields:


Subject: Select a subject.

Select
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3


Name: Enter your full name.


Email: Enter your email address.


Message: Enter your message.



Optional Fields:


Updates: Check this box to receive updates.










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

2007-05-27 Thread Nick Fitzsimons

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

2007-05-27 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
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

2007-05-27 Thread Terrence Wood


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

2007-05-27 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
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

2007-05-27 Thread John Faulds
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.


  Optional:
Phone
  

Web site
  



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

2007-05-27 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> On Behalf Of Mordechai Peller
> Instead of using a legend, how's about:
> 
> label.required span {
> position : absolute;
> left : -px;
> }
> Required...

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.

Required...

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

2007-05-27 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
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.


  Optional:
Phone 
  

Web site 
  



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

2007-05-27 Thread Mordechai Peller

Paul Novitski wrote:


Required:

Name:
value="" />


...

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;
}
Required...


***
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

2007-05-27 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
Paul Novitski wrote:

> What if it were simply the word "required"?
>
>   Enter your contact information:
>
>   
>   Required:
>
>   Name:
>   
>   
>   ...
>
> 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

2007-05-27 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> 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:
> 
> * Required fields

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

2007-05-27 Thread Paul Novitski

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"?

Enter your contact information:


Required:

Name:


...

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

2007-05-27 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> 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.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  for
example:

Required fields are displayed in italic (read with
emphasis). 

.pa { position:absolute;left:-px }

Email:


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

2007-05-27 Thread Mordechai Peller

Paul Novitski wrote:
All this makes me try to come up with a way to present the asterisks 
as footnote indicators visually but not aurally. 
In theory, you could use CSS, although lack of support (to put it 
mildly) would be an issue.
One could present the asterisks as background images on the abbrev 
elements, but as such they wouldn't scale.
CSS 3 allows scaling of background images, but here too, it doesn't help 
you today.

  If they were scalable foreground images, they'd need an alt:


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.

Perhaps, leave the asterisk as an asterisk and mark it up as such:

* Required fields


***
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

2007-05-27 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
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).

 
  Required Contact Info:
   Enter your full name:

   
   Enter your email address:

   
 

 
  Optional Contact Info:
   Enter your phone number:

   
   Enter your web site address:
http://"; />
   
 

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

2007-05-27 Thread Paul Novitski



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.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

2007-05-26 Thread Terrence Wood

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

2007-05-26 Thread Thierry Koblentz
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  (or  
>> the non-standard ) 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:
* (required field)
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]
***



Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields

2007-05-26 Thread 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.


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

2007-05-26 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> 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.
> 
> > Fields marked with * (asterisk) are required.
> 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.
> 
> *
> 
> 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

2007-05-26 Thread Nick Fitzsimons


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

2007-05-25 Thread Mike at Green-Beast.com
Hello Thierry,

> What about marking up "*" used in forms with ABBR elements?

In your example you left the text instruction.

> Fields marked with * (asterisk) are required.

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.

*

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

2007-05-25 Thread Thierry Koblentz
> On Behalf Of Nick Fitzsimons

> > Please fill fields marked with * (required field).
> >   * Name:  > php echo
> > error(); ?>
> > 
> >   
> >   * Email: 
> > 
> >   
 
> It makes sense to me, assuming that the second  (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]
***



Re: [WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields

2007-05-25 Thread Nick Fitzsimons

On 26 May 2007, at 05:05:33, Thierry Koblentz wrote:


What about marking up "*" used in forms with ABBR elements?



Please fill fields marked with * (required field).
  * Name: php echo

error(); ?>

  
  * Email: 

  


It makes sense to me, assuming that the second  (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]
***



[WSG] The use of asterisks in forms to indicate required fields

2007-05-25 Thread Thierry Koblentz
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:





What about marking up "*" used in forms with ABBR elements? 
I mean (using Mike's code from another thread), we'd  replace this:

>   Fields marked with * (asterisk) are required.
> * Name: 
>   
> 

With this:

Please fill fields marked with * (required field).
  * Name: 

  
  * Email: 

  

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]
***