Back to the radio button discussion, Jo Ann is correct re: my suggested solution not being compatible with any need to detect whether any one of the remaining items in a group—other than the hidden "not selected" item—is checked. That is, the ability to require that an item other than the hidden "not selected" item must be selected, and then issuing an appropriate response for the user to consider.

That being said, the fact that the forms are now HTML-based, it would be fairly simple to write a custom validation script to check if any superfluous button—I'm calling these the "not selected" items—within a group that has been marked as being "required" is checked. In this case, the assumption would be something like, "What the...? This group is marked as required, but the 'not selected' item is the only one that is checked—this means that none of the remaining items has been checked. TILT!"

Being a rather linear retired civil engineer, I, for one am really glad that w3c coordinates standards. We'd ultimately be sunk without them. As Scott says, the standard—in its current form—dictates that the browser agent must assign a "checked" state to the first item of any group that has no selected items:

.

I'll definitely admit that it would be nice to NOT have to write the custom script. Thus, it would seem that the w3c standard needs to be changed.

I would not like for CC to have to only "kind of" adhere to the standards. What if some browsers observe the w3c radio button standard, but others didn't (Internet Explorer, anyone?). Then, we're still in the business of browser detection and applying hacks. Isn't the goal to be able to avoid that?

Guess I'll bow out, now—my head is beginning to hurt, and it's time for an adult beverage!

hi Dick,

Well said. There is something to be said for linear thinking.

I guess I would have to describe myself as a bit of an anarchist when it comes to rules and regulations. When I see a rule that should not be, I tend to want to replace everything rather than just that which is the offending rule.
Having said that, take a look at my website form: http://www.perfectonlynflpool.com/all_picks.htm and notice that none of the radio buttons have a preselection. Of those, only one is not a required item because there is another form that has just the Thursday game involved.
I am using a different form builder (unnnamed) that has ignored the wc3 directive concerning pre selection. It is fully HTML5 compliant and the form produced can be accessed on any Apple and Android OS. The program allows for direct transfer to my website from within the program just as the Classic CC Webform builder did. It is also set up to accept varying math function with or without decimals. It does not at anytime require me to do HTML.
I think I have said enough at this point and hope that Scott realizes that there is still much work to be done on this program to make it as useful as the old classic was. I want CC to succeed, but at this point it is not happening with this program according to

Guy

Hiya Guy,

Although when I validated your link in the above post for HTML it comes up with 9 errors, none of them seem to be connected to that particular issue with the radio button....

Scott, shouldn't there be an error or warning or something on it if it's not accepted? Not saying it isn't as I read the info you linked to, just saying that it's not showing anything about that button that I can see even though his has no defaulted selection.

Checked in:
Google 16.0.912.63
Firefox 8.01
Firefox 9.0
IE 9 (most recent build)

None of these browsers are doing anything strange to it. Not sure if the older ones do but....

PLEASE add the ability. Just make it something we can choose to do or not to do if it's a problem for you guys conscience. Just give us the option and if we want to use it we will and if we don't we won't. This way it puts the validation issue in our hands rather than yours. Make it set to default like it is now with an option to turn off the preselection if we choose to. This way those that don't understand the difference won't be getting invalid code, and those of us that do will be able to choose. Please??? Pretty Please??

We have not decided one way or another yet. I was just sharing what I have found when we started looking into this. Each time someone requests it, I log it into our system. If each person who wants this feature opens a support ticket for it, that will lend greater weight then here as I have something I can point to for our developers.

So there you go.

Hi Jo Ann,

Not sure what you're saying here. Are he errors HTML based or is it kinks, or maybe even form design?

Guy

Hiya Guy,

Most has to do with your Marquee setup. Some of the code you're using on that site is very old style HTML, it's surprising you don't get a lot more warnings and errors, but so far that's what I see mostly the Marquee. There is 1 transparency error on line 118, not sure if that's the form or part of the marquee yet.

I checked it here: http://validator.w3.org

Sorry to say Guy it is your design <font> should not be used at all that should be done in a CSS and did I notice an in line frame some were? that scrolling marquee is not really good to have as people with bad eye site would have big problems with it you are supposed to have a site that is assessable to all.
Sorry also that the colours your using are the worst ones to use if your colour blind so at this point Guy before you say how bad the form is sort your code out then say how bad the form program is as for W3c it is a web standard it can be bent but not put in a blender .
Just my critique For what it’s worth
Happy Holidays or even have a very Happy Christmas to the coffee cup team

Guy - What Badger is saying about your color selection and the scrolling marquee is spot on. I went to your site, and honestly closed it within less than a minute just from the color selections alone. I dare say that I'm really glad I am not dealing with one of my nice headaches right now, as that would've put me over the edge.

As to the form builder, is there room for improvement? You betcha! This is version 1 remember, and CC has been listening to US the end users, and implementing fixes and improvements already. I know, your client (or you) needs the technology yesterday (don't they always ). If it were me, I'd use the FB to layout the brunt of the work, then go in to the code via HTML Editor and put the final touches on it, UNTIL the program meets your needs.

Badger, Jo Anne, and Phil,

I am so disappointed in your critique of my website. I thought that this discussion thread had to do with Web Form Builder. For what it is worth, I wrote in another thread that I was not a programmer. I do not know anything about HTML, only that my website is HTML based. I do not even have an HTML editor.

The subject was the Web Form to point out what I want to achieve, and that cannot be done without a lot of work on the present program. Frankly, I don't really know how to design a website to please, I design a website to be functional to the people with whom I deal. The Web Form Classic served a purpose in so far as I was dealing with people who did not use Apple or Android OS on a regular basis. Now, even I have gadgets with those OSs.

I needed a Web Form design program that emulated what the Classic did. I did not find it with CC, so because CC was helpeful to me, I want CC to succeed. This Web Form Builder is so far below the capabilties of the Classic that it cannot be used as I tried to demonstrate over a period of weeks.

Let's focus on the Web Form, not whether you like banners, or colors or whatever.

Guy

Hiya Guy,

You asked me what the errors were about and I told you in my reply. I'm sorry if you thought I was off topic, but I don't think I was? Was just answering your questions about what the errors were about that I saw.