W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Use of pre-compilated text-fields in forms

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 06:49:03 -0400
Message-Id: <6C399B15-26FD-4EB6-BEF8-4B32C2F65A53@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: "Alastair Campbell" <ac@nomensa.com>

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 need to stop following this outdated WCAG 1.0 checkpoint, IMHO.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:24 GMT