RE: default place holder for radio buttons- checkpoint 10.4

That would be my stance too but... (... but it doesn't get the logo which some people seem to think is important)

Could anyone provide combinations of user agents/AT which won't recognise that the form control is there if a place holder is not present (or present other problems).

I notice that in my copy of the draft WCAG2 (probably not the most recent) checkpoint 10.4 is to be replaced with Checkpoint 5.2 "Design for backward compatibility". How far back should we be looking?

--J.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman1@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:13 PM
> To: Scarlett Julian (ED); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: default place holder for radio buttons- checkpoint 10.4
> 
> 
> 
> I am for neutrality on this.  In other words, check nothing 
> and leave it up
> to the user to decide what they want checked.  Not only does 
> this prevent
> entering accidental data, it also prevents entering optional 
> data if the
> user wishes to do that.  When you check something, you are 
> apparently making
> assumptions about your users.  I'm not sure what the 
> reasoning is for having
> something checked by default but I also support the use of 
> combo boxes where
> ever possible with the item at the box being a null item.  If 
> something
> needs to be chosen and nothing has been chosen, submission 
> should inform the
> user that this needs to be done before acceptance will be 
> granted and this
> also should be done within the form to help cut down on non 
> submission of
> critical data.
> 
> So, while I think the null approach is best, I could be 
> persuaded by cogent
> arguments against my position being aware that I have been 
> using assistive
> technology for around 30 years.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:58 AM
> Subject: default place holder for radio buttons- checkpoint 10.4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All
> 
> last year I asked:
> 
> "Is it necessary to make a radio button in a fieldset 
> checked? I know that
> it
> is a requirement for WCAG 10.4 but how useful is it? I'm a 
> bit worried by
> setting one as checked for say, indicating a user's gender in 
> a form, and
> then that user hitting return accidentally and sending 
> information that they
> haven't actually entered. I guess the same applies to 
> checkboxes. For text
> inputs the problem is less because the form will just submit 
> something like
> "enter your name" instead of a name but with buttons the data 
> sent could be
> valid but incorrect"
> 
> I never actually received a response from anyone (not that 
> I'm bitter ;-))
> but the problem has just reared it's head again.
> 
> I know that some people think that it's not actually necessary now to
> include default place-holders for text areas but does the 
> same still hold
> for grouped controls such as radio buttons and checkboxes?
> 
> thanks
> 
> --J.
> 
> 
> Julian Scarlett
> Education Web Officer
> Floor 6, Derwent House
> 150, Arundel Gate
> Sheffield S1 2JY
> 
> tel: 0114 2735612
> http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/education/
> 
> 
> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you 
> are not the
> addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your 
> email software
> as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any 
> responsibility
> for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has 
> been transmitted
> over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been
> intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
> 

The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.

Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 10:58:26 UTC