7 ms·

Should required fields be marked?

34 points by Akcium 4y ago

forgotpwd16 4y ago
>However, there is another famous UI book written in Russian. The author of this book is against marking fields as required due to the following reasons. But which book is this?
- Akcium 4y ago
  https://bureau.ru/books/ui/ https://bureau.ru/books/ui/ this one
another-dave 4y ago
> Asterisks are an invention of WEB. Operating systems usually don't use them at all. Asterisks aren't an invention of the web, they're a hold over from paper forms. It is/was common to have an asterisk beside required fields. Because that was already a convention it was adopted by designers & ported over to digital. > You can separate required and non required fields I think this is good when its appropriate to the data. It's almost like you'd apply it at a fieldset level rather than field level. As in, asking for username/email/password and then in another section asking for what your interests are for the algo recommendations is great. If you have something like fields for name — first name/last name are both mandatory; middle name is optional — it would really break the flow of the form if they weren't in conventional order.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  Forms that ask for names should just as for the name and not try to force the developers cultural view of how names are constructed on the user.
  - simiones 4y ago
    That assumes that there is no law or legacy system that requires names to be collected in that way, which is not a solid assumption.
  - mminer237 4y ago
    It's rather off-putting to always be referred to by your full legal name. You might need that for billing statements, but other times you might want to just address people by their first names or as "Mr./Mrs. Doe". Normal communication in our culture requires understanding the cultural use of names.
    - czx4f4bd 4y ago
      Or you could just have fields for "full name" and "preferred name".
      - hunter2_ 4y ago
        What if I prefer Firstname in casual settings, Mr. Lastname in fancy settings, and Firstname Lastname as a fallback when the setting isn't so obvious? For people with such preferences, a schema of prefix/first/last actually does make more sense than a schema of legal/preferred. But overall, for global optimization, I'm a fan of legal/preferred.
        thesuitonym 4y ago
        Then when you enter preferred name, you put the name you would prefer.
        hunter2_ 4y ago
        I'm saying I prefer different things in different contexts. Like if I am a student named John Bob Doe, and I set my preferred name to John in the school info system so all the authenticated websites say "Hi, John" in the personalized user header rather than something more verbose, that doesn't mean I prefer that they use only "John" for all but the most legal of matters. I want them to use Mr. Doe when etiquette suggests same, John Doe when introducing me to an audience (say, on stage or in the news), John B. Doe on my diploma, etc. This nuance is what the prefix/first/mid/last schema inherently provides for, in cultures that utilize it. You'd need a whole suite of preferred name fields otherwise. That said, global inclusivity does seem to be more important.
  - another-dave 4y ago
    Agree that _systems as a whole_ should be designed for one name, but that's often out of the hands of whoever is developing the form. If the system _is_ designed to require a first name/last name, trying to correct for that on the front-end just makes the problem worse in my opinion (e.g. doing something like breaking on space and calling the first bit the "first name" and the second bit the "surname").
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Please tell that to the government, product managers, and everybody else who want/mandate names to follow multiple pre-conceived patterns. I work on ERP software. Name-handling is ridiculously over-complicated. FML, preferred, chosen (distinct from preferred), prior/maiden, legal/mailing, etc.
- loloquwowndueo 4y ago
  Obligatory link to https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
causi 4y ago
Wouldn't it depend entirely on which is more common in your form? If it's a medical form and 95% of the fields are required, mark the optional ones. If it's a social network sign-up page and most of the fields are optional, mark the required ones. I don't know what kind of slope-browed sadist wouldn't mark anything at all.
kwhitefoot 4y ago
Of course they should be. The only question is how.
m000 4y ago
> Asterisks are an invention of WEB. Operating systems usually don't use them at all. What kind of horseshit is this? With a 5" wikipedia search: > In the Middle Ages, the asterisk was used to emphasize a particular part of text, often linking those parts of the text to a marginal comment. That's practically identical to the use of asterisks on the web: pointing to a side note that says that these fields are mandatory. Also, the examples used to demo the asterisk counter-proposals are cherry-picked to be super simple. The minute your form becomes more complicated than "email/password/phone", the counter-proposals become inferior to simply using an asterisk. PS. Who the hell spells web as "WEB" in 2022? In fact when "WEB" was ever considered proper, outside of all-caps headings?
- annowiki 4y ago
  I believe he means "the use of asterisks to mark required fields" was invented for the web. Otherwise, you'd have to be quite young and quite sheltered to not have seen asterisks in places older than the web.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    Except I've seen the same on paper forms plenty of times in the past, they point at a footnote saying "Required".
    - rocketbop 4y ago
      It's hardly the same thing. A footnote is used for any relevant information that doesn't belong for whatever reason in the body of the text. That it could say "Required" seems neither here nor there.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        > A footnote is used for any relevant information Yes, and the one on paper forms almost always was used for "required". Besides, when it didn't, normally there were many of them, so they were numbered instead of an asterisk. The asterisk itself was all but reserved for "required".
zagrebian 4y ago
Web Incubator Community Group forum topic: Browsers should clearly mark required fields https://discourse.wicg.io/t/browsers-should-clearly-mark-required-fields/6021 https://discourse.wicg.io/t/browsers-should-clearly-mark-req...
sccxy 4y ago
Another UI/UX "expert" who needs to reinvent the wheel to justify his existence.
btbuildem 4y ago
Here's a wild thought: only put required fields on your form. Designing UIs has been part of my job for a while now, and it's always about the bigger picture. Where is this "optional" information being used? If it's optional, does this introduce complexity down the line (handling / not handling it depending on whether it was provided)? You can always break down and simplify things. Perhaps this optional information is irrelevant -- exclude it altogether. Is it relevant in some contexts only? Handle it separately for these contexts only. Marking "required" fields is lazy design imo.
- punyearthling 4y ago
  Preach! Came here to say the same thing. But you know product/stakeholders can't help themselves asking for more than they need :)
  - benj111 4y ago
    So should a phone number be required or not when ordering something? It's commonly used to text delivery times etc. Or what about a contact form where you're given the option of a call back. Or what about if it's a government form and they're legally required to ask race, gender etc, but you aren't required to answer. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but you very quickly run in to situations where you need optionality. It's like making apps easy to use by having no options. Great in theory but annoying in practice.
- tsieling 4y ago
  I'm not sure we can always interpret 'optional' as 'nice to have but not necessary'. Optional fields can often cover edge or alternate cases like an apartment number in addition to a street address, a dietary or other accessibility accommodation, etc. You could work around it by adding a bunch of conditional fields which then move more work onto the person filling in the form (tell me you need the extra fields then I'll show them and they will then be required) and add code complexity (more UI flows to test). Many optional fields are indeed nice to have but assuming they all are misses that the world has a lot of fuzzy edges, and optional spaces handle those with a simple convention that many people expect and understand.
xnx 4y ago
If you're interested in usability topics, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ is a much better source.
rocketbop 4y ago
> Another interesting approach. The author shows an example where you have a site URL input and the label says "Your site, if you have one". Or, the label is "Site" and there is a hint below it: "if you have one". > On the one hand, it feels more natural to me. It's like asking people in real life "Hey, may I have caramel syrup if you have one?". Strange that a UI designer might consider more natural language in a form to be better, as it seems antithetical to "Don't make me think".
jonnycomputer 4y ago
Of course it should. Who hasn't had the experience of an unhelpful message telling us that all required fields be completed, but without indicating just which those are supposed to be. The question is horseshit.
coffeedan 4y ago
Better title: “Should required fields be marked with asterisks, or something else?”
oftenwrong 4y ago
A simple and clear approach is adding "(required)", or the localised equivalent, to the required fields.
KoenDG 4y ago
Absolutely. Even if only for the timesaving.

34 points by Akcium 4y ago

>However, there is another famous UI book written in Russian. The author of this book is against marking fields as required due to the following reasons. But which book is this?

Akcium 4y ago
https://bureau.ru/books/ui/ https://bureau.ru/books/ui/ this one

another-dave 4y ago

> Asterisks are an invention of WEB. Operating systems usually don't use them at all. Asterisks aren't an invention of the web, they're a hold over from paper forms. It is/was common to have an asterisk beside required fields. Because that was already a convention it was adopted by designers & ported over to digital. > You can separate required and non required fields I think this is good when its appropriate to the data. It's almost like you'd apply it at a fieldset level rather than field level. As in, asking for username/email/password and then in another section asking for what your interests are for the algo recommendations is great. If you have something like fields for name — first name/last name are both mandatory; middle name is optional — it would really break the flow of the form if they weren't in conventional order.

kwhitefoot 4y ago
Forms that ask for names should just as for the name and not try to force the developers cultural view of how names are constructed on the user.
- simiones 4y ago
  That assumes that there is no law or legacy system that requires names to be collected in that way, which is not a solid assumption.
- mminer237 4y ago
  It's rather off-putting to always be referred to by your full legal name. You might need that for billing statements, but other times you might want to just address people by their first names or as "Mr./Mrs. Doe". Normal communication in our culture requires understanding the cultural use of names.
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    Or you could just have fields for "full name" and "preferred name".
    - hunter2_ 4y ago
      What if I prefer Firstname in casual settings, Mr. Lastname in fancy settings, and Firstname Lastname as a fallback when the setting isn't so obvious? For people with such preferences, a schema of prefix/first/last actually does make more sense than a schema of legal/preferred. But overall, for global optimization, I'm a fan of legal/preferred.
      - thesuitonym 4y ago
        Then when you enter preferred name, you put the name you would prefer.
        hunter2_ 4y ago
        I'm saying I prefer different things in different contexts. Like if I am a student named John Bob Doe, and I set my preferred name to John in the school info system so all the authenticated websites say "Hi, John" in the personalized user header rather than something more verbose, that doesn't mean I prefer that they use only "John" for all but the most legal of matters. I want them to use Mr. Doe when etiquette suggests same, John Doe when introducing me to an audience (say, on stage or in the news), John B. Doe on my diploma, etc. This nuance is what the prefix/first/mid/last schema inherently provides for, in cultures that utilize it. You'd need a whole suite of preferred name fields otherwise. That said, global inclusivity does seem to be more important.
- another-dave 4y ago
  Agree that _systems as a whole_ should be designed for one name, but that's often out of the hands of whoever is developing the form. If the system _is_ designed to require a first name/last name, trying to correct for that on the front-end just makes the problem worse in my opinion (e.g. doing something like breaking on space and calling the first bit the "first name" and the second bit the "surname").
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Please tell that to the government, product managers, and everybody else who want/mandate names to follow multiple pre-conceived patterns. I work on ERP software. Name-handling is ridiculously over-complicated. FML, preferred, chosen (distinct from preferred), prior/maiden, legal/mailing, etc.
loloquwowndueo 4y ago
Obligatory link to https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...

causi 4y ago

Wouldn't it depend entirely on which is more common in your form? If it's a medical form and 95% of the fields are required, mark the optional ones. If it's a social network sign-up page and most of the fields are optional, mark the required ones. I don't know what kind of slope-browed sadist wouldn't mark anything at all.

kwhitefoot 4y ago

Of course they should be. The only question is how.

m000 4y ago

> Asterisks are an invention of WEB. Operating systems usually don't use them at all. What kind of horseshit is this? With a 5" wikipedia search: > In the Middle Ages, the asterisk was used to emphasize a particular part of text, often linking those parts of the text to a marginal comment. That's practically identical to the use of asterisks on the web: pointing to a side note that says that these fields are mandatory. Also, the examples used to demo the asterisk counter-proposals are cherry-picked to be super simple. The minute your form becomes more complicated than "email/password/phone", the counter-proposals become inferior to simply using an asterisk. PS. Who the hell spells web as "WEB" in 2022? In fact when "WEB" was ever considered proper, outside of all-caps headings?

annowiki 4y ago
I believe he means "the use of asterisks to mark required fields" was invented for the web. Otherwise, you'd have to be quite young and quite sheltered to not have seen asterisks in places older than the web.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Except I've seen the same on paper forms plenty of times in the past, they point at a footnote saying "Required".
  - rocketbop 4y ago
    It's hardly the same thing. A footnote is used for any relevant information that doesn't belong for whatever reason in the body of the text. That it could say "Required" seems neither here nor there.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      > A footnote is used for any relevant information Yes, and the one on paper forms almost always was used for "required". Besides, when it didn't, normally there were many of them, so they were numbered instead of an asterisk. The asterisk itself was all but reserved for "required".

zagrebian 4y ago

Web Incubator Community Group forum topic: Browsers should clearly mark required fields https://discourse.wicg.io/t/browsers-should-clearly-mark-required-fields/6021 https://discourse.wicg.io/t/browsers-should-clearly-mark-req...

sccxy 4y ago

Another UI/UX "expert" who needs to reinvent the wheel to justify his existence.

btbuildem 4y ago

Here's a wild thought: only put required fields on your form. Designing UIs has been part of my job for a while now, and it's always about the bigger picture. Where is this "optional" information being used? If it's optional, does this introduce complexity down the line (handling / not handling it depending on whether it was provided)? You can always break down and simplify things. Perhaps this optional information is irrelevant -- exclude it altogether. Is it relevant in some contexts only? Handle it separately for these contexts only. Marking "required" fields is lazy design imo.

punyearthling 4y ago
Preach! Came here to say the same thing. But you know product/stakeholders can't help themselves asking for more than they need :)
- benj111 4y ago
  So should a phone number be required or not when ordering something? It's commonly used to text delivery times etc. Or what about a contact form where you're given the option of a call back. Or what about if it's a government form and they're legally required to ask race, gender etc, but you aren't required to answer. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but you very quickly run in to situations where you need optionality. It's like making apps easy to use by having no options. Great in theory but annoying in practice.
tsieling 4y ago
I'm not sure we can always interpret 'optional' as 'nice to have but not necessary'. Optional fields can often cover edge or alternate cases like an apartment number in addition to a street address, a dietary or other accessibility accommodation, etc. You could work around it by adding a bunch of conditional fields which then move more work onto the person filling in the form (tell me you need the extra fields then I'll show them and they will then be required) and add code complexity (more UI flows to test). Many optional fields are indeed nice to have but assuming they all are misses that the world has a lot of fuzzy edges, and optional spaces handle those with a simple convention that many people expect and understand.

xnx 4y ago

If you're interested in usability topics, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ is a much better source.

rocketbop 4y ago

> Another interesting approach. The author shows an example where you have a site URL input and the label says "Your site, if you have one". Or, the label is "Site" and there is a hint below it: "if you have one". > On the one hand, it feels more natural to me. It's like asking people in real life "Hey, may I have caramel syrup if you have one?". Strange that a UI designer might consider more natural language in a form to be better, as it seems antithetical to "Don't make me think".

jonnycomputer 4y ago

Of course it should. Who hasn't had the experience of an unhelpful message telling us that all required fields be completed, but without indicating just which those are supposed to be. The question is horseshit.

coffeedan 4y ago

Better title: “Should required fields be marked with asterisks, or something else?”

oftenwrong 4y ago

A simple and clear approach is adding "(required)", or the localised equivalent, to the required fields.

KoenDG 4y ago

Absolutely. Even if only for the timesaving.