WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Placeholder text contrast

for

From: Jesse Hausler via WebAIM-Forum
Date: Mar 20, 2015 6:28PM

As a follow up question to anyone still reading this thread... what would
you say to the idea that placeholder text is the browser default (poor
contrast) gray. Then onfocus, the placeholder contrast is upped to 4.5:1?

Cliff,
Our placeholder text uses the placeholder attribute, so it wasn't an issue
of users submitting bad data. Our researchers observed that some users
felt they had nothing to complete on a given page. They were faced with a
form, thought it was already filled out and then submitted without
completing or didnt submit at all.

I can't speak to an error rate, but it was enough for the team to ask me
about it. Our product relies on users inputing information about their
customers, accounts, leads, etc. If they think that a field is already
filled in and do not provide that piece of information, then they aren't
using the product to the fullest. That means we can't use that data to make
them more successful at their work, businesses, non-profits, etc.

Thanks,
Jesse



On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Cliff Tyllick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> A number of times I have seen this sort of response to questions about
> making placeholder text work better: "In our website, we did away with it
> because [some percentage] of the responses left the placeholder text in
> place, and bad data is worse than no data. Do you know what that percentage
> is for your site?"
>
> I don't recall ever seeing a response to that question—especially not an
> answer of, "We've tested that, and it never happens."
>
> It seems like your group is doing some serious testing, Jesse. Is there
> any condition under which the form is never submitted with the placeholder
> text left in place?
>
> If not, what is that error rate? And what is the impact to the customer's
> experience of your website?
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
> fault.
>
> > On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Bryan Garaventa <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >
> > There are additional issues regarding placeholder that relate to current
> Accessibility API mappings that are having a significant
> > impact on accessibility for AT users at present as well, which I've
> already brought up recently at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2015Mar/0116.html
> > Which might be helpful to be aware of.
> >
> >