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

Review use of mandatory fields #1915

Open
yatesn opened this issue Feb 3, 2022 · 6 comments
Open

Review use of mandatory fields #1915

yatesn opened this issue Feb 3, 2022 · 6 comments
Labels
Accessibility Issues discovered through accessibility testing Enhancement Change of existing feature High priority Needs Content/UR Issues that require additional content design or user research

Comments

@yatesn
Copy link

yatesn commented Feb 3, 2022

Mandatory fields were not required for census, however GDS advised that mandatory and non-mandatory fields should be highlighted. Spike required to consider how this should be applied going forward

@yatesn yatesn added New feature proposal A proposal for a new component, pattern, style or documentation to add to the ONS Design System Enhancement Change of existing feature Spike Requires investigation outside BAU work and removed New feature proposal A proposal for a new component, pattern, style or documentation to add to the ONS Design System labels Feb 3, 2022
@jrbarnes9
Copy link
Contributor

jrbarnes9 commented Nov 9, 2022

You should make sure you know why you’re asking every question and only ask users for information you really need.

If you ask for optional information:

  • in most contexts, add ‘(optional)’ to the labels of optional fields
  • for radios and checkboxes, add ‘(optional)’ to the legend

Never mark mandatory fields with asterisks.

https://design-system.service.gov.uk/patterns/question-pages/

@daniellecorke
Copy link

See 'When to use this pattern': Gov Design System Question Pages

@daniellecorke daniellecorke added the Needs Content/UR Issues that require additional content design or user research label Mar 21, 2024
@daniellecorke
Copy link

The eQ DAC test highlighted that not providing optionality was a Level A fail therefore it would be good to prioritise this work. eQ are planning for a DAC re-test in June.

@daniellecorke
Copy link

eQ DAC suggested solution:
Ensure that where both required and optional fields are used, that either the required or the optional fields are identified as such to users. Ensure that this is implemented consistently throughout the service.

@daniellecorke
Copy link

On the UCD Board: https://jira.ons.gov.uk/browse/CU-97.

@daniellecorke daniellecorke added High priority Accessibility Issues discovered through accessibility testing and removed Spike Requires investigation outside BAU work labels May 29, 2024
@e-livingstone
Copy link

This is in the UCD prioritised backlog

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Accessibility Issues discovered through accessibility testing Enhancement Change of existing feature High priority Needs Content/UR Issues that require additional content design or user research
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants