- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:49:03 -0400
- To: "Alastair Campbell" <ac@nomensa.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I agree. putting numbers in edit fields is not a goood practice. Puting in an x or a word or two which if left in would return an invalid entry message would be the solution. On May 9, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote: > That's some excellent info, Steven. Further reinforces the > need to stop following this outdated WCAG 1.0 checkpoint, IMHO. I can second that. I was testing with screen reader users on a utilities site, where they were trying to pay a bill. Several people actually paid too much (£500 instead of £5) due to the pre-filled input. Luckily it was a test version, so they weren't really out of pocket ;) I have to disagree with David, retaining this checkpoint would be a step backwards. It seems there are more people adversely affected by the unnecessary inclusion of default text than benefit. Those than are currently helped only need it because their user agent can't deal with reasonable (and valid) HTML. I'm also unclear what phone interfaces have to do with this, my phone is hardly new, but happily deals with blank inputs. Kind regards, -Alastair -- Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience t. +44 (0)117 929 7333 | ac@nomensa.com Keep up to date with industry and Nomensa news, sign up to Nomensa newsletters: http://www.nomensa.com/news/nomensa-newsletters.html Nomensa Email Disclaimer: http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 10:49:18 UTC