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

Here is what HL7 does.

https://www.hl7.org/fhir/datatypes.html#humanname

Regards,
Makoto

2024年10月9日(水) 21:02 Philipp Christoph Tautz <philipptautz@googlemail.com>:

> 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!*
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
 --
慶應義塾大学政策・メディア研究科特任教授
村田 真