填写表单

Lon Barfield
{"title":"填写表单","authors":"Lon Barfield","doi":"10.1145/543459.543481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For me, and many other people, the filling in of forms is one of the most gut-wrenchingly difficult tasks that there is. Tax forms make me cringe, and forms connected with nasty things like car insurance claims are frightening. Often the problems associated with form filling have to do with how well they cater for your particular situation. If they match well you can just get on with it, if they match badly you spend all your time filling things in and crossing them out; 'do they mean this or do they mean that?' A small part of good form design, be they paper or on-line forms, involves guiding the user through the filling-in of the form; only asking them questions that are relevant and hiding information that is not relevant. However a deeper part of form design is the building blocks at the foundation of the very system that the form is a part of. This is the aspect I want to concentrate on here; forms as an indication of how closely systems match reality. A form that needs to be filled in is not just a means of gathering data, it is an embodiment of assumptions made by the system (and the system's designer) about who the user is and what they are doing. Forms are the 'skin' of underlying systems, and systems are often set in old ways of doing things and old ways of classifying people that don't match the real world. Here is a common example; although a huge proportion of long-term, stable relationships do not involve marriage , there is still very little recognition of this in forms and processes. For men they must either tick 'Single' or 'Married', there is no box for 'Actually living with someone for the last twenty years and fathering their kids and probably going to be with them a good sight longer'. For women it's even worse, if they have already been married and then got divorced before settling down without marrying, then for the rest of eternity there is only one thing they can choose when faced with the choice; 'Mar-ried, Single or Divorced'. Even the simple, multiple-choice questions I've been working on recently for an on-line, user survey have had to be adjusted to take all the user's eventualities into consideration. As well as the five optional choices, two extra options have been added. An 'other' …","PeriodicalId":7070,"journal":{"name":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","volume":"22 1","pages":"15 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fill-in forms\",\"authors\":\"Lon Barfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/543459.543481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For me, and many other people, the filling in of forms is one of the most gut-wrenchingly difficult tasks that there is. Tax forms make me cringe, and forms connected with nasty things like car insurance claims are frightening. Often the problems associated with form filling have to do with how well they cater for your particular situation. If they match well you can just get on with it, if they match badly you spend all your time filling things in and crossing them out; 'do they mean this or do they mean that?' A small part of good form design, be they paper or on-line forms, involves guiding the user through the filling-in of the form; only asking them questions that are relevant and hiding information that is not relevant. However a deeper part of form design is the building blocks at the foundation of the very system that the form is a part of. This is the aspect I want to concentrate on here; forms as an indication of how closely systems match reality. A form that needs to be filled in is not just a means of gathering data, it is an embodiment of assumptions made by the system (and the system's designer) about who the user is and what they are doing. Forms are the 'skin' of underlying systems, and systems are often set in old ways of doing things and old ways of classifying people that don't match the real world. Here is a common example; although a huge proportion of long-term, stable relationships do not involve marriage , there is still very little recognition of this in forms and processes. For men they must either tick 'Single' or 'Married', there is no box for 'Actually living with someone for the last twenty years and fathering their kids and probably going to be with them a good sight longer'. For women it's even worse, if they have already been married and then got divorced before settling down without marrying, then for the rest of eternity there is only one thing they can choose when faced with the choice; 'Mar-ried, Single or Divorced'. Even the simple, multiple-choice questions I've been working on recently for an on-line, user survey have had to be adjusted to take all the user's eventualities into consideration. As well as the five optional choices, two extra options have been added. An 'other' …\",\"PeriodicalId\":7070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Sigchi Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"15 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Sigchi Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/543459.543481\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Sigchi Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/543459.543481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

对我和其他许多人来说,填写表格是最令人揪心的困难任务之一。纳税表格让我畏缩,而与汽车保险索赔等令人讨厌的事情相关的表格则令人恐惧。通常,与表单填写相关的问题与它们如何满足您的特定情况有关。如果它们匹配得很好,你就继续写下去,如果它们不匹配,你就把所有的时间都花在填写和划掉上面;“他们是这个意思还是那个意思?”好的表单设计,无论是纸质表单还是在线表单,都有一小部分涉及到引导用户填写表单;只问他们相关的问题,隐藏不相关的信息。然而,表单设计的更深层次的部分是在系统的基础上构建模块,而表单是系统的一部分。这是我想在这里着重讲的方面;形式作为系统与现实匹配程度的指示。需要填写的表单不仅仅是收集数据的一种手段,它是系统(和系统设计师)对用户是谁以及他们正在做什么的假设的体现。表单是底层系统的“皮肤”,而系统通常是以旧的做事方式和旧的分类方式设置的,这与现实世界不匹配。这里有一个常见的例子;尽管很大一部分长期稳定的关系不涉及婚姻,但在形式和过程中对这一点的认识仍然很少。对于男人来说,他们要么选择“单身”,要么选择“已婚”,没有“实际上和某人一起生活了20年,养育了他们的孩子,可能还会和他们在一起很长一段时间”的选项。对女人来说更糟糕,如果她们已经结过婚,又离婚了,还没有结婚就安定下来,那么她们在面对选择的时候,永远只有一个选择;“已婚、单身或离婚”。即使是我最近为一项在线用户调查做的简单的选择题,也必须进行调整,以考虑到所有用户的可能性。除了五个可选选项外,还增加了两个额外选项。一个“其他”……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fill-in forms
For me, and many other people, the filling in of forms is one of the most gut-wrenchingly difficult tasks that there is. Tax forms make me cringe, and forms connected with nasty things like car insurance claims are frightening. Often the problems associated with form filling have to do with how well they cater for your particular situation. If they match well you can just get on with it, if they match badly you spend all your time filling things in and crossing them out; 'do they mean this or do they mean that?' A small part of good form design, be they paper or on-line forms, involves guiding the user through the filling-in of the form; only asking them questions that are relevant and hiding information that is not relevant. However a deeper part of form design is the building blocks at the foundation of the very system that the form is a part of. This is the aspect I want to concentrate on here; forms as an indication of how closely systems match reality. A form that needs to be filled in is not just a means of gathering data, it is an embodiment of assumptions made by the system (and the system's designer) about who the user is and what they are doing. Forms are the 'skin' of underlying systems, and systems are often set in old ways of doing things and old ways of classifying people that don't match the real world. Here is a common example; although a huge proportion of long-term, stable relationships do not involve marriage , there is still very little recognition of this in forms and processes. For men they must either tick 'Single' or 'Married', there is no box for 'Actually living with someone for the last twenty years and fathering their kids and probably going to be with them a good sight longer'. For women it's even worse, if they have already been married and then got divorced before settling down without marrying, then for the rest of eternity there is only one thing they can choose when faced with the choice; 'Mar-ried, Single or Divorced'. Even the simple, multiple-choice questions I've been working on recently for an on-line, user survey have had to be adjusted to take all the user's eventualities into consideration. As well as the five optional choices, two extra options have been added. An 'other' …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Session details: HCI education A whole picture is worth a thousand words How to fix an election www.designingtherealworld.com Parting thoughts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1