[whatwg] a few comments to Webforms 2.0 Call For Comments
Matthew Raymond
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 30 12:00:46 PDT 2004
Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> It makes UI sense that the user should be able to undo any input. OTOH I
> like the ability to have a radiogroup in an initial state where no
> option is selected. A solution could be to define that radiogroups are
> *always* required. In that case there is no *valid* state that the user
> cannot return to. If the author wants "no selection" to be valid input,
> then it should be expressed as an seperate option like "(o) None of the
> above".
I'm not sure about the "required" part. For instance, you may not
want to require specification of gender or race in one of those Federal
statistics form thingies. On the other hand, I generally agree that it's
bad UI to have a situation where there is not default selection. This is
because someone could accidently select something and not be able to
return the radio group to its original state.
I recommend that, for HTML documents with the W2 doctype, there
should always be a default option selected, regardless if that default
is specified. Therefore, if none of the radio buttons are set, the first
radio button in the group would automatically be set. If WF2 isn't
specified as the doctype, we'll default to HTML 4.01 behavior, even if
WF2 markup is used. The WF2 spec should recommend the use of a radio
button "Not Specified" for a default value if the user does not wish to
select an option.
More information about the whatwg
mailing list