search

carbon-design-system / carbon

A design system built by IBM
https://www.carbondesignsystem.com
Apache License 2.0
7.86k stars 1.82k forks source link

Forms with required field indicators for more technical applications #3065

Closed joshua-vaughn closed 4 years ago

joshua-vaughn commented 5 years ago

Summary

The current Carbon form component assumes that the majority of form fields are required, and optional fields are called out with "(optional)" appended to their labels.

While we agree that this design pattern is correct for less technical applications, in more technical applications like Cloud Pak for Data it is common to have have forms where the majority of fields are optional and required fields are the exception.

Required fields

Our request is that Carbon provide an option for a form to highlight required fields instead of optional fields, perhaps with a red asterisk as is common practice.

For comparison, forms in Salesforce Lightning indicate required fields, while forms in Google Material allow designers to choose whether to indicate required fields or optional fields.

Salesforce

Material

Justification

Cloud Pak for Data intends to migrate to Carbon 10, but with the current design pattern the vast majority of form fields throughout the platform would have the "(optional)" indicator, which looks incorrect and unsightly.

Desired UX and success metrics

The Carbon form component allows application designers to select whether to highlight required fields or optional fields, depending on the needs of their application.

When required fields are highlighted, they should be highlighted in a way that is accessible and does NOT make users think that empty required field contain errors.

"Must have" functionality

The Carbon form component allows application designers to select whether to highlight required fields or optional fields, depending on the needs of their application.

When required fields are highlighted, they should be highlighted in a way that is accessible and does NOT make users think that empty required field contain errors.

Specific timeline issues / requests

This request is important for Cloud Pak for Data to migrate to Carbon 10

Available extra resources

The Cloud Pak for Data UX team can contribute design, research, and possibly development resources towards this effort. If there are concerns with this request, please set up a meeting with Arin Bhowmick, Joshua Vaughn, and Sam Ting to discuss.

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

We've marked this issue as stale because there hasn't been any activity for a couple of weeks. If there's no further activity on this issue in the next three days then we'll close it. You can keep the conversation going with just a short comment. Thanks for your contributions.

joshua-vaughn commented 5 years ago

This is on the backburner, but still very relevant for Cloud Pak for Data.

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

We've marked this issue as stale because there hasn't been any activity for a couple of weeks. If there's no further activity on this issue in the next three days then we'll close it. You can keep the conversation going with just a short comment. Thanks for your contributions.

joshua-vaughn commented 5 years ago

Still needed, stalebot.

Some progress: Sam Ting has published design guidelines for the Cloud Pak for Data platform's current AP++ style (based on Carbon 9) on IBM's internal GitHub: https://github.ibm.com/Sam-Ting/icpd-visuals/blob/gh-pages/Components/optional-required/_optional-required.md

Cloud Pak for Data is starting to plan how we will migrate to Carbon 10, and a workshop is being planned. We hope to start contributing to Carbon 10 soon!

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

We've marked this issue as stale because there hasn't been any activity for a couple of weeks. If there's no further activity on this issue in the next three days then we'll close it. You can keep the conversation going with just a short comment. Thanks for your contributions.

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

We've marked this issue as stale because there hasn't been any activity for a couple of weeks. If there's no further activity on this issue in the next three days then we'll close it. You can keep the conversation going with just a short comment. Thanks for your contributions.

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

We've marked this issue as stale because there hasn't been any activity for a couple of weeks. If there's no further activity on this issue in the next three days then we'll close it. You can keep the conversation going with just a short comment. Thanks for your contributions.

jeanservaas commented 4 years ago

We are closing this because it directly contradicts our best practice form guidance — we directly advise against soliciting an excessive amount of Optional information from users. So it's be design that we assume that the majority of information is required.

https://www.carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/forms-pattern#building-a-form