W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2005

[whatwg] [wf2] 2.3. Changes to existing controls - radio buttons

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0503211243100.1818@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > The UA should not be required to provide such an ability. All radio 
> > buttons being unchecked in a group is an error condition. However if 
> > the UA wants to provide it, that's a UA thing.
> 
> It is in error? Let me quote something:
> 
> # Radio buttons in sets where none of the buttons are marked as checked
> # must all be initially left unchecked by the UA (which differs from
> # the behavior described in [RFC1866], but more accurately represents
> # common implementation and author needs).

That's a UA requirement, and doesn't have any bearing on whether something 
is an error or not.

The next bit says: "Authors are recommended to always have one radio 
button selected. Having no radio buttons selected is considered very poor 
UI." which I guess means it's not really an error condition, but it is 
close to it.


> If you allow them to be unchecked initially and a user accidently checks 
> one which needs to be unchecked for that particular user he/she has a 
> problem. The current description would allow that to happen.

Yes. Like it says: it's poor UI. Authors shouldn't do it.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 04:44:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:39 UTC