W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: [W3C] default place holder for radio buttons- checkpoint 10.4

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:08:44 -0500
Message-ID: <004901c3b102$24ba5cb0$6501a8c0@handsontech>
To: "Julian" <j@simweed.com>, "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "P.H.Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

From a usability stand point, I do, since one is checked no matter which one
it is so it is assumed that it has been chosen when the form is submitted.
In forms where none of them are checked, when I get ot the point where I am
given the option to review before submission, that one is skipped since no
data is there if I don't want it to be.  A good example is the age range
validation radio buttons I have seen in some places.  If it is not a
required field and none are checked, no age range field even shows up on the
presubmission output.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian" <j@simweed.com>
To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: "P.H.Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: [W3C] default place holder for radio buttons- checkpoint 10.4

Of course you're right, and in a form where that question was deemed
appropriate this soluton might work but in the majority of real world
applications there are usually set responses that must be made. I don't
think there is a HR dept in the world that would dream of putting out an
application form where it was possible to enter one's gender as "other".
If I thought for more than five minutes I could probably come up with a
few other examples. This is digressing a bit from the topic now though...

A solution along the same lines might be to have a default radio button
labelled 'not answered' and validate the form submission for the
ocurrence of these and prompt the respondee to fill them in. Does anyone
see any problems with that?


Access Systems wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, P.H.Lauke wrote:
>>Gender: male, female, other ? I'd think that would confuse people more
>>than anything else (or make for some interesting results if nothing else)
> unfortunately there are a large number of "other" folks in the world due
> to genetic problems
> Bob
Received on Saturday, 22 November 2003 09:09:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC