Validating error

How to: Display Error Icons for Form Validation with the Windows Forms ErrorProvider Component

ValidationError Class (bedestenevler.comls)

- Цепная мутация, сэр. Снова воцарилось молчание. Лучшее, что мог сделать директор, - не мешать ему работать и наблюдать за тем, как коммандер творит свое чудо.

Form data validation - Learn web development | MDN

Фонтейн наблюдал молча.

Christian Holst is the co-founder of Baymard Institute where he writes bi-weekly articles with their research findings on web usability and e-commerce … More about Christian ….

Error pages for form-field validation are dreadful. I clearly recall the often loud sighs of despair during our last usability study each time a test subject encountered a validation error page. Some of the frustration with validation error pages likely stems from the user being returned to the same page they came from.

Being returned to the exact same page is problematic for a couple of reasons:. Besides having a subpar indication of errors, Staples also breaks a handful of checkout usability guidelines.

When the user first submits the page, the entire page is reloaded, but with indications of validation errors. A message at the top of the page tells the user they have made an error and describes what the error is; further down the page, the label for the erroneous field is in bold and red. This is significantly better than the sad practice some websites adopt of only highlighting the erroneous field in red or bold without any description and letting the user guess what went wrong.

But the implementation could be much more thorough. Notice the anchor link at the top and the tailored description near the erroneous fields.

Now, in addition to being able to locate the erroneous fields and spot multiple errors more easily, the user actually has guidance on how to correct their data. While better, this second implementation and the first still result in a poor experience. The signal-to-noise ratio is still high two errors among all valid fields. Here, each form field is validated separately as the user types. Luke Wroblewski has done some excellent usability research on the inline validation techniques that work best.

Inline validation alleviates the aforementioned issues by indicating progress and by pointing out the erroneous fields since the page does not reload. This makes the technique useful for forms in which the fields can be validated independently. In the realm of e-commerce, one might need an address or credit card to be validated. Alternatively, live inline validation could be disabled for just those fields for which the data has to be checked remotely.

Based on these observations, we thought of a validation technique better suited to complex data. What if we removed all validated fields on the error page that reloads?

What if we displayed only those fields that failed validation? With this approach, the picture is quite different. The user now gets a new page, or an overlay, with just a couple of error fields. This approach makes the error page much more digestible than the traditional technique, and it makes abundantly clear which fields are the problem, which is particularly helpful in long forms.

Great companies are looking for smart cookies like you. Compared to the two traditional reloading techniques i. In general, the longer the form and the more complex the inputted data and its dependencies, the more likely the error-fields-only approach is the best choice.

Inline validation is effective for simpler forms. When the data is an array or set, such as with postal addresses and credit cards, then the method becomes problematic. In this case, the UI would be illogical the user would see each field validated individually and then suddenly fail collectively or inconsistent only some fields would validate as the user types. Of course, this technique would still require the page to be reloaded as a fallback, in case the user submits the form regardless of inline error messages or if they have disabled JavaScript ; therefore, the page reload techniques the traditional and newer versions might be best even for simple forms.

On smartphones, the error-fields-only approach has an advantage over the same-page-reload technique, because users typically lack an overview and context of the form due to the small screen. In such cases, displaying only the erroneous fields would help the user focus on the task at hand.

The error-field-only approach is merely a concept , and it needs both refinement and testing. An even better solution to these user experience problems most likely exists. The error-fields-only approach is more an attempt to inspire and a call to action to rethink how we handle validation errors and thus provide a better user experience. Summary Table of Contents. Quick Summary Error pages for form-field validation are dreadful. Blue Nile Some of the frustration with validation error pages likely stems from the user being returned to the same page they came from.

Being returned to the exact same page is problematic for a couple of reasons: With all form fields still displayed valid or not , the user might have difficulty identifying the few erroneous fields among the many valid ones.

More critically, seeing the same page twice makes it seem like the user has made no progress , despite having just filled in numerous form fields correctly. The three changes are: New job openings Great companies are looking for smart cookies like you.

3 Replies to “Validating error”

  1. The constraint validation API gives you a powerful tool to handle form validation, letting you have enormous control over the user interface above and beyond what you can do just with HTML and CSS alone.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *