Re: What to consider when making a web form for international audiences

Hi Kevin,

Those are all good points, especially considering "Name 1” to be the first name. I got to that because here in Japan we often have several address fields, while in Germany where I am originally from we have “Street”, “City”, etc. 
What “Name 1”, “Name 2” etc. would allow for is some more flexibility.

If this was formalised I would suggest to prefer “Name” and allow for “Name 1”, “Name 2” if there is an absolute need to have more then one field. In the end these rules need to follow what the real world gives and while I have mostly to always suggested one name field, I have often heard from engineers, product managers and security practitioners that these must be 2 fields, they cannot be only one, this would be insecure, blah. 

I doubt there is a perfect solution, but if this would be a rule, I guess pushing for 1 field and allowing for several neutrally named would the most practical approach. 

Recommending also “What name would you prefer we call you?” would be great addition thought! 

Best,

Philipp

> On Oct 9, 2024, at 17:16, Kevin White <kevin@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> This has been something that has been a vexing quirk of mine for a good while. GDS design pattern for names <https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/names/> changed to promoting only having one field. However, they do note that “a single name field can accommodate the broadest range of name types, but means you cannot reliably extract parts of a name”. Even with this change many public sector services I dealt with in previous roles persisted in requiring first name and surname and could not defend that position when challenged.
> 
> I think ’name 1’ and ’name 2’ would simply cause the problem to persist since it is likely that people would conclude that ’name 1’ was first name and ’name 2’ surname.
> 
> ‘Name' does the job up to the point where there is a desire or need to extract parts of the name. One example I can think is where the service provider is seeking to create a more informal connection. In such a case, I would probably advocate for a question like “What name would you prefer we call you?”
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kevin
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2024, at 08:12, Philipp Christoph Tautz <philipptautz@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Agree, definitely a good thing to point out. I can foresee issues where security practitioners will say they need both, but as the post points out, it is better to give options.
>> Since fields like Address 1 and Address 2 are already common, I would suggest to go with “name 1” and “name 2”. Whereas only one field should ever be required. Some people may only have 1 name.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Philipp  
>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2024, at 22:51, Jan McSorley <mcsorleyjan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> This came across my LinkedIn feed and I thought it would be something we should point out in feedback to AG. Having the standard first name and last name fields on forms does not work for everyone.
>>> 
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fibrhi_inclusivedesign-uxdesign-accessibility-ugcPost-7241473507136528390-yybm?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
>>> 
>>> Jan McSorley
>>> Accessibility Consultant
>>> 512-731-7957 (mobile)
>>> linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley <https://www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley>
>>> 
>>> We put a man on the moon in the 1960's. Surely we can make information technology fully accessible to people with disabilities. It can be done. It must be done. It will be done!
>> 
>