- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:30:33 +0100
*Ian Hickson* <ian at hixie.ch>: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Graham wrote: > >>> 2. <select> controls, which do not need to be replaced at all, >> >> If that's really true, then all the date types seem a little pointless. >> I thought that one of the advantages of the WF2 controls was allowing >> sites to present a consistent, OS-specific interface to form controls. >> If multiple select controls are as good a solution, there seems little >> point in implementing or using WF2. > > Indeed. Three <select>s are reasonably good UI, They are easy for the programmer, but ask any usability expert: he will (perhaps even strongly) advice against them, because (alpha-)numerical input into /one/ field in ones accustomed format is much faster and easier. A (very) good online ticketing PoS date/time input thus has to understand "2/3" = "3.2." = "Feb 3rd" = "3 Feb." = "02-03" = "w05-4" = "034" = "first Thursday in February", "next Thursday afternoon", "2nite", "asap" etc.p.p. (in an English speaking environment; defaulting to the next possible year, month, week, day, hour). > although not as good as type="date" on a supporting UA. Those calendar-datepickers, which are probably the expected GUI component, are also slower and usually not as flexible as a simple text string. Better than three selects at the client-side and easier to handle on the server-side, though. > While WF2 UAs are not in the majority, > there's not really a huge advantage to using the new types. ACK, server-side intelligence is still the best. A scaled-down client-side version can help to avoid unnecessary requests.
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 08:30:33 UTC