Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Confusing UI for <details> in the Participant Agreement #400

Open
zcorpan opened this issue Sep 15, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Confusing UI for <details> in the Participant Agreement #400

zcorpan opened this issue Sep 15, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@zcorpan
Copy link
Member

zcorpan commented Sep 15, 2022

In whatwg/html#8241 @tashasyarifah struggled to sign the Participant Agreement because they thought the triangles were bullet points of a list, and clicked the link "Individual" which doesn't expand the <details> but just scrolls up to the definition.

This is confusing UI. We shouldn't use links in <summary> (also see whatwg/html#2272), and the styling could maybe be different to make it more usable.

For example, maybe there could be a radio button group for signing as individual vs entity, and selecting the radio button expands the appropriate <details>.

Currently it looks like this:

Screenshot, two lines with a leading triangle and the text 'If signing as an Individual' where 'Individual' is a link, and similarly for 'Entity'.

Straw person proposal:

Screenshot, same as above but without the links. Above the details widgets, a radio button group 'Sign as (radio button) Individual (radio button) Entity' and a paragraph saying 'For reference, refer to the definitions for Individual and Entity.' with 'Individual' and 'Entity' being links.

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Sep 15, 2022

This is confusing UI. We shouldn't use links in <summary> (also see whatwg/html#2272),

I disagree with this; I think the UI is fine as-is in that regard.

Removing triangles if they have confused someone seems fine I guess, but I think disclosure triangles are a pretty common UI pattern...

@zcorpan
Copy link
Member Author

zcorpan commented Sep 15, 2022

I don't think removing the triangles solves anything. With that as the only change, people would still be tempted to click the link, and then not be aware that they're expected to click the text next to the link to expand an initially invisible form.

@zcorpan
Copy link
Member Author

zcorpan commented Sep 15, 2022

With my suggested change, the natural next step is to click one of the radio buttons, rather than clicking the links. When you do that, the details opens and then the natural next step is to fill in the now visible form.

@tashasyarifah
Copy link

After looking back, I figure out there are two actions that happen in <summary>. First, click the If signing as an individual which opens <details> that have a form. Second, click the link which individual that will scroll up to the definition. Yesterday, I had no idea if there were two actions.

I agree that not to input links in a summary. It might solve the problem. So, it will open the form automatically when people click it. It will look like this.

A screenshot of the signature section of the Participant Agreement. In that image, there are no links. Everything is in one action.

For the definition, might be we can give the reference or statement like in the Entity form.

A screenshot of an entity form in the Participant Agreement with the green square. The green square highlighted the statement for people who signed it.

Other suggestions will be to change the style for links in a <summary>. We can see that the font-weight are bold. It seems like no difference between them. Try to change font-weight for links to normal. There will be a significant difference. People will focus on bold text and might realize that the links are additional information. Here's the picture of what it looks like.

A screenshot of the signature section of the Participant Agreement with a new style. The links have normal font-weight, while the rest are bold.

@smellygoat1

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants