E-mail List Archives
Re: <ul> for form layout?
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Aug 10, 2017 12:05PM
- Next message: Jonathan Avila: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Previous message: Graham Armfield: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Next message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Previous message in Thread: Graham Armfield: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- View all messages in this Thread
Yeah, I totally see what you're sayng there.
It is definitely not a user blocker or an outright violation. It's
just a judgment call of verbiage vs. important info.
I wouldn't fault it , but would bring it up as a decision to be made.
The important thing is not to get fooled into thinking that putting
the label and input in the same list item is enough to associate the
label with the form field.
I've seen people think that in the past, so I am always careful to point it out.
On 8/10/17, Graham Armfield < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> For me, I think it's a valid use of an unordered list, and pretty much
> every form I've created uses <ul> and places the label + input pairs inside
> an <li> tag. It is, after all, a collection of related items - in this
> case, form fields.
>
> If the screen reader announces that it's a list and tells the user how many
> elements are in the list - ie how many form fields, that seems to me to be
> useful information. If my form consists of 5 elements the user may have a
> different expectation as to how long the form is going to take compared to
> if there were 15 or more elements.
>
> When using this construct I always ensure that any hidden fields are kept
> outside the <ul>.
>
> Regards
> Graham Armfield
> > > > >
--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
- Next message: Jonathan Avila: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Previous message: Graham Armfield: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Next message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- Previous message in Thread: Graham Armfield: "Re:
- for form layout?"
- View all messages in this Thread