- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:55:56 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 09:57:10 UTC
Hi Robin, > I think this should stay a SHOULD NOT, but as all SHOULDs it must be > followed by a "because". > agreed, we appear to have rough consensus on 2 points: 1. it stay as 'should not' 2. additional explanatory text would be useful. regards SteveF On 19 February 2013 09:51, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 19/02/2013 10:00 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> I see your point about memory related conditions. And I agree that >> placeholders-only is generally poor form in a complex form. But I think >> placing a MUST NOT on an issue that ultimately comes down to visual >> design is not likely to work well. I think it's more effective to give >> authors advice about what designs usually work better and how to make a >> wide range of designs accessible. >> > > Much agreed. I routinely get lost in placeholder-only forms. It's also why > I often don't like browsers' form autofill functionality: if the browser > gets something wrong in a placeholder-only form, you just can't see it. > > I think this should stay a SHOULD NOT, but as all SHOULDs it must be > followed by a "because". > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 09:57:10 UTC