user interface proposals

[Si Chen-2]

Hi everybody -

A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:

1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.

2.  Agree on a notation for required fields on a form.  Should the  
labels be in red (my preference), or should there be a * after the  
field?

3.  Modify the form-widget so that in case of auto-fields-service,  
required fields of service are highlighted according to (2).  In case  
of auto-fields-entity, primary key fields are highlighted according  
to (2).  Manually created forms will have to be manually edited...

Any thoughts?

Best Regards,

Si
[hidden email]

[cjhowe]

2. should be specified by a css class that is set in
the <form/> tag.  the form widget should write this as
<td class="fieldClass formReqClass"> This way you get
the cascading effect and remains generic

--- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everybody -
>
> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a
> bit:
>
> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current
> date-time.
>
> 2.  Agree on a notation for required fields on a
> form.  Should the  
> labels be in red (my preference), or should there be
> a * after the  
> field?
>
> 3.  Modify the form-widget so that in case of
> auto-fields-service,  
> required fields of service are highlighted according
> to (2).  In case  
> of auto-fields-entity, primary key fields are
> highlighted according  
> to (2).  Manually created forms will have to be
> manually edited...
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Si Chen" <[hidden email]>
> Hi everybody -
>
> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:
>
> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.

+10 (ha non, bon +1 ;o). But I remember David saying that it's not possible everywhere, am I wrong ?

>
> 2.  Agree on a notation for required fields on a form.  Should the  
> labels be in red (my preference), or should there be a * after the  
> field?

Both as it's rather std to see an * and that we will not have to suppress already existing *.

> 3.  Modify the form-widget so that in case of auto-fields-service,  
> required fields of service are highlighted according to (2).  In case  
> of auto-fields-entity, primary key fields are highlighted according  
> to (2).  Manually created forms will have to be manually edited...

Very good ideas

> Any thoughts?

Too tired, sorry. But I guess this topic will have some...

Jacques

>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
> [hidden email]

[Adrian Crum]

Si Chen wrote:

> Hi everybody -
>
> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:
>
> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.
>
> 2.  Agree on a notation for required fields on a form.  Should the  
> labels be in red (my preference), or should there be a * after the  field?

Definitely use an asterisk. Red text might conflict with an alternate style sheet.

[Iain Fogg]

Si Chen wrote:
> Hi everybody -
>
> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:
>
> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.
If it is mandatory.
>
> 2.  Agree on a notation for required fields on a form.  Should the
> labels be in red (my preference), or should there be a * after the field?
Seems reasonable to me
>
> 3.  Modify the form-widget so that in case of auto-fields-service,
> required fields of service are highlighted according to (2).  In case
> of auto-fields-entity, primary key fields are highlighted according to
> (2).  Manually created forms will have to be manually edited...
Yes

>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Si
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 23/11/2006
>
>  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.15/550 - Release Date: 24/11/2006

[Scott Gray]

Si Chen wrote:
> Hi everybody -
>
> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:
>
> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.
How about adding an attribute like default-now="true", so that it can be
used where appropriate?

Regards
Scott

[Jean-Sébastien HEDERER]

"Scott Gray" a écrit le 25/11/2006 04:22 :

> Si Chen wrote:
>> Hi everybody -
>>
>> A couple of suggestions to improve user interface a bit:
>>
>> 1.  Default fromDate on forms to the current date-time.
> How about adding an attribute like default-now="true", so that it can
> be used where appropriate?
>
> Regards
> Scott
>

I agree with Scott

[Jean-Sébastien HEDERER]

"Chris Howe" a écrit le 24/11/2006 23:32 :
> 2. should be specified by a css class that is set in
> the <form/> tag.  the form widget should write this as
> <td class="fieldClass formReqClass"> This way you get
> the cascading effect and remains generic
>
> --
How can we add an * (for me it's the most easy to understand way for
mandatory inputs) with CSS?

[cjhowe]

.formReqClass:after{
content:"*";
}

--- Jean-Sébastien Hederer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Chris Howe" a écrit le 24/11/2006 23:32 :
> > 2. should be specified by a css class that is set
> in
> > the <form/> tag.  the form widget should write
> this as
> > <td class="fieldClass formReqClass"> This way you
> get
> > the cascading effect and remains generic
> >
> > --
> How can we add an * (for me it's the most easy to
> understand way for
> mandatory inputs) with CSS?
>

[Jean-Sébastien HEDERER]

"Chris Howe" a écrit le 25/11/2006 11:11 :
> .formReqClass:after{
> content:"*";
> }
>  
Is ":after" W3C CSS compliant?

[cjhowe]

Yes, it is part of the CSS 2 specification.  However,
I don't believe IE (even IE7) supports it.

--- Jean-Sébastien Hederer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Chris Howe" a écrit le 25/11/2006 11:11 :
> > .formReqClass:after{
> > content:"*";
> > }
> >  
> Is ":after" W3C CSS compliant?
>

[David Garrett]

There are problems with ie5/6 having multiple classes such as <td
class="fieldClass formReqClass">

Refer to the following
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/multipleclasses.html

Wrt :after ... It does not work in ie 5/6/7 nor Explorer 5.2 Mac
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/beforeafter.html


My suggestion would be to use standard element styling for eg the <input
.../> With a class if required. The '*' or whatever can be placed with CSS
using a background-image
 ie don't have fieldClass use the default form input  styling eg...

form input { ..... }
form input.required { ..... }

Maybe allow for an alternate style eg

form input.alt { .... }
form input.alt-required { .... }

Maybe also
.required { ... }
.alt-required { ... }

Further to this approach, in my view the style .tabletext, which is used
extensively, should actually be removed.
Ie it should probably be replaced by default stlyes for the elements td,
div, p and maybe body

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Howe [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, 25 November 2006 9:28 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: user interface proposals

Yes, it is part of the CSS 2 specification.  However, I don't believe IE
(even IE7) supports it.

--- Jean-Sébastien Hederer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Chris Howe" a écrit le 25/11/2006 11:11 :
> > .formReqClass:after{
> > content:"*";
> > }
> >  
> Is ":after" W3C CSS compliant?
>