www.jpgimage.co.uk/full.php?image=360

Its probably safe to say that most sign guestbook webpages are quite 
simplistic and quite basic .

On this design i've tried to make it good to look at without adding 
gimmicky shite to it .

The avatar the user picks is shown next to their guestbook entry in the 
usual view guestbook webpage .

The fields in maroon are optional .


Like or dislike the layout and design ? .

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:12:30 -0000, Krustov wrote:
> www.jpgimage.co.uk/full.php?image=360
> 
> [...]
> 
> The fields in maroon are optional .
>
> Like or dislike the layout and design ? .


The image containing the verification code needs to be near to the input
box where the user types the code - putting any form details *under* the
submit button is a particualrly bad idea in general. You also need to make
it clear that what they need to type are the numbers in the polygons.


Highlighting optional fields rather than compulsory fields is the opposite
from how this is usualy done. The difference between the black and maroon
is not very noticable either, and it's always a bad idea to have important
information expressed only using colour - a better approach is to put some
text such as "Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are compulsory" at the
start of the form and then put asterisks after the appropriate field names.


As a final, more minor issue, it would look much nicer if the input boxes
were all the same length.


-- 
Safalra (Stephen Morley)

Common Web Browser Window Sizes:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/usability/common-browser-window-sizes/

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Safalra (Stephen Morley)>
<Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:06:40 +0000>
<t7obq03n1eqa$.141f1ewt6zto$.dlg@40tude.net>

> The image containing the verification code needs to be near to the input
> box where the user types the code - putting any form details *under* the
> submit button is a particualrly bad idea in general. You also need to make
> it clear that what they need to type are the numbers in the polygons.
> 
> 
> Highlighting optional fields rather than compulsory fields is the opposite
> from how this is usualy done. The difference between the black and maroon
> is not very noticable either, and it's always a bad idea to have important
> information expressed only using colour - a better approach is to put some
> text such as "Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are compulsory" at the
> start of the form and then put asterisks after the appropriate field names.
> 
> 
> As a final, more minor issue, it would look much nicer if the input boxes
> were all the same length.
> 

I asked for opinions and you gave yours - fair enough .

But at the risk of being accused of being a foot stomper its clear you 
failed to factor in the actual web design of the guestbook form dictated 
that some of the normal routine stuff couldnt be used .

In future when you comment , Try to take in all factors as its only when 
you do that your words of wisdom will be valued .

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:05:12 -0000, Krustov wrote:
> <uk.net.web.authoring>
> <Safalra (Stephen Morley)>
> <Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:06:40 +0000>
> <t7obq03n1eqa$.141f1ewt6zto$.dlg@40tude.net>
> 
>> [snip advice on form usability]
>> 
> 
> I asked for opinions and you gave yours - fair enough .
> 
> But at the risk of being accused of being a foot stomper its clear you 
> failed to factor in the actual web design of the guestbook form dictated 
> that some of the normal routine stuff couldnt be used .
> 
> In future when you comment , Try to take in all factors as its only when 
> you do that your words of wisdom will be valued .


I can't read your mind, and nor can anyone else here. If you don't mention
what unusual constraints you are under that result in the usual rules of
form usabilty not applying, then you cannot expect to be given advice that
will suit your needs.


-- 
Safalra (Stephen Morley)

Character Entity References In HTML:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/html-and-css/character-entity-references/

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Safalra (Stephen Morley)>
<Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:16:47 퍍>
<1j65xch0zw2yq$.1p9t8onz83ije.dlg@40tude.net>

> > I asked for opinions and you gave yours - fair enough .
> > 
> > But at the risk of being accused of being a foot stomper its clear you 
> > failed to factor in the actual web design of the guestbook form dictated 
> > that some of the normal routine stuff couldnt be used .
> > 
> > In future when you comment , Try to take in all factors as its only when 
> > you do that your words of wisdom will be valued .
> 
> 
> I can't read your mind, and nor can anyone else here. If you don't mention
> what unusual constraints you are under that result in the usual rules of
> form usabilty not applying, then you cannot expect to be given advice that
> will suit your needs.
> 

Do you mean that your unable to calculate a 2 times tables unless you 
are given a 2 times table chart .

Answer this question .....

If you had £1 and something costs 75p in your local shop - then how much 
change would you recieve back in loose change ? .

From my first impression of the guestbook.... I agree that this is going to
look alot better 
if the input boxes are of the same length OR the 1st input box (Your Name) at
the same length as the Pink Content Box.

And its better for the image code to be beside the input area, web design
also need to consider the usability of users.

In terms of Layout
I would prefer if the avatars icons stay at the top of the form

Cheers

Krustov wrote:
><uk.net.web.authoring>
><Safalra (Stephen Morley)>
><Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:06:40 +0000>
><t7obq03n1eqa$.141f1ewt6zto$.dlg@40tude.net>
>
>> The image containing the verification code needs to be near to the input
>> box where the user types the code - putting any form details *under* the
>[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> As a final, more minor issue, it would look much nicer if the input boxes
>> were all the same length.
>
>I asked for opinions and you gave yours - fair enough .
>
>But at the risk of being accused of being a foot stomper its clear you 
>failed to factor in the actual web design of the guestbook form dictated 
>that some of the normal routine stuff couldnt be used .
>
>In future when you comment , Try to take in all factors as its only when 
>you do that your words of wisdom will be valued .

-- 
Message posted via WebmasterKB.com
http://www.webmasterkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/site-design/200712/1

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:59:26 -0000, Krustov wrote:
> Do you mean that your unable to calculate a 2 times tables unless you 
> are given a 2 times table chart .
> 
> Answer this question .....
> 
> If you had £1 and something costs 75p in your local shop - then how much 
> change would you recieve back in loose change ? .


Now you're just trolling. I shan't be seeing any more of your posts -
welcome to my killfile.


-- 
Safalra (Stephen Morley)

Character Entity References In HTML:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/html-and-css/character-entity-references/