W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > October 2006

unicorn feedback

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:23:52 +0100
Message-ID: <452AAFD8.1@splintered.co.uk>
To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
CC: WaSP ATF <AccessibilityTF@webstandards.org>

purely on the first screen of http://qa-dev.w3.org/unicorn/

- those form elements could do with some actual label elements to go 
with them
- could the application assume http:// when an address was simply 
entered without a particular protocol?
- why exactly is javascript a requirement to validate documents? is it 
not just a requirement for the proper operation of this initial page, 
and even there could it not be implemented in a graceful way so that, 
without javascript, everything is still perfectly functioning?

After submission with an error (e.g. omitting "http://" for instance), 
you have "Below is a stack trace from Unicorn to help solving the 
problem". Who does this help, exactly? The users or the developers? As I 
suspect it's the latter, is it truly necessary to show the stack trace, 
rather than a friendly "you forgot to put a protocol in...", ideally 
with a copy of the previously submitted form, already populated with 
what the user originally entered?

And, probably a feature that's already in the works: needs to have an 
option to actually show the source code, or at least show the particular 
line that throws errors.

Apart from that, it's looking very handy.

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 20:24:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:36:26 UTC