Quoting Christopher Richards <cmr1ch6rd7@blueyonder.co.uk>: > I wanted to support Marsha Stringer's comment about how difficult it is to > spot the box to be ticked that says "I've read and understood where > infomation about corrections must come from". > I know it is there but still sometimes find it hard to spot. > Would it be possible to redesign the form slightly so as to make it easier > to see - without making it so easy that people tick it without reading the > blurb. In a word.... "no" The whole point of the box is that it shouldn't be easy to see at a glance. It should only be spotted by somebody who is reading the instructions. Trust me, if you had to read through the utter dross that used to be submitted by people who ignored the instructions, you'd see the point. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

Dave, You are seeing it from the viewpoint of someone who uses that system regularly or had a hand in designing it. A first timer reading those instructions can, and will, get confused very easily. They are NOT clear; on modern sized screens the text is crowded and confused and even if you DO read all the instructions, that particular section is NOT easily identified. I made the comment when I first read (and missed) this section - if any of my programmers EVER submitted a screen design to me for a web page and 'insisted' this is how it should be, he (or she) would be looking for a new job straight away. This is a very narrow minded view that appears to come from someone or some group who know everything and can never accept that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong. Stephen Rowe RaceTime / RaceNews Melbourne Australia Family Web: http://rowe.racetime.com.au web : http://www.racetime.com.au email: stephen@racetime.com.au -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mayall [mailto:david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2006 9:05 AM To: FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: {not a subscriber} Attempted Correction Failure In a word.... "no" The whole point of the box is that it shouldn't be easy to see at a glance. It should only be spotted by somebody who is reading the instructions. Trust me, if you had to read through the utter dross that used to be submitted by people who ignored the instructions, you'd see the point.

Quoting Stephen Rowe <stephen@racetime.com.au>: > Dave, > > You are seeing it from the viewpoint of someone who uses that system > regularly or had a hand in designing it. Indeed, from the viewpoint of somebody who redesigned the form over many itterations to *finally* cut the utter dross out. > A first timer reading those instructions can, and will, get confused very > easily. Only the first timer who arrives with the attitude that "I want to tell them that they have the name wrong, because it's spelt differently in the Family Bible, and I don't need to read any damned instructions" > They are NOT clear; on modern sized screens the text is crowded and confused > and even if you DO read all the instructions, that particular section is NOT > easily identified. If you believe that you can make them clearer, then feel free to submit what they should look like. As to that section not being easiliy identified, I repeat what I said before. It is not designed so as to be easily spotted on skim reading the instructions. > I made the comment when I first read (and missed) this section - if any of > my programmers EVER submitted a screen design to me for a web page and > 'insisted' this is how it should be, he (or she) would be looking for a new > job straight away. If you can think of a better way, then feel free. However, any way which makes it less likely that people will read the instructions is unworkable. > This is a very narrow minded view that appears to come from someone or some > group who know everything and can never accept that maybe, just maybe, they > are wrong. I accept that the design is not the best of all possible designs. However, until such time as you can ensure that people won't ignore instructions, it is vital for our continued sanity. -- Dave Mayall ---------------------------------------------- This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net