E-mail List Archives

Re: Complex use of Radio input

for

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Nov 24, 2009 11:00AM


Again it is not my design, some "customer" who is paying a company wanted the 9 levels and did not want to change the rating scale. It is probably some hold over from paper based versions of the survey, but I do not know. The value of the nine levels is probably debatable, but the company just wanted to improve accessibility and contacted us.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:11:27 -0800
>From: Keith Parks < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Complex use of Radio input
>To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>
>
>On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>
>> I would be interested in learning about your ideas of making this
>> form more accessible.
>
>
>I can understand the thinking behind having a fully descriptive Label
>for each radio button.
>
>Actually, my original thought for simplifying it was do they really
>need *nine* different rating levels? Wouldn't 1-5 be enough
>distinction? (which would eliminate over 40% of the "chatter") Are
>they really going to act on the data collected differently if
>something is rated at a 3 out of 9 compared to a 4 out of 9?
>
>Or even just three levels of on some things: level of service - low |
>medium | high
>
>Yes, I can see on the "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" scale, 5
>levels makes sense. But 9 levels of subtlety seems unnecessary. But
>that kind of simplification would be more related to *usability* by
>someone using assistive technology, and maybe not to the textbook
>accessibility of the page.
>
>******************************
>Keith Parks
>Graphic Designer/Web Designer
>Student Affairs Communications Services
>San Diego State University
>San Diego, CA 92182-7444
>(619) 594-1046
>mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
>
>http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Putting the "no" in "Innovation" since 1988.
>
>