[BNM] Radio button advice

[paul perrin]

I'd consider Option 1 - the gadget for unselecting would appear only when a
value has been selected for that question.
so

Are you Happy [_] or Sad [_] (note: leave blank if you don't want to
answer).

becomes (could use better wording for the clear answer button)

Are you Happy [X] or Sad [_] - [click to remove this answer]

I suggest this because you actually have two different questions
1) do you want to answer this question?
2) If so then what is your answer?

You might imply one from the other, but that leaves a conceptual gap --
does the absense of an answer mean you don't want to say or that neither
apply? So make it explicit (you could even have a 'none of the above'
option, and still have the 'clear answer' pop up button - to give that extra
option).

After the first couple of questions, the user would soon get the message!

Paul /)/+)

On 31/03/2008, Robert Douglas <rob at anucreative.com> wrote:
>
> So we've got an email form with three questions answerable by radio
> buttons.
> Thing is we want to give these radio buttons special behaviour:
> 1. We don't want to sway people's answers by defaulting any.
> 2. We want people to be able to not answer at all.
> 3. We don't want to complicate the form by adding unnecessary
> words/options
>
> As an (purely fictitious) example:
> I am .happy .sad
> I am .rich .poor
> I am .human .animal
>
> Two possible options/scenarios we're thinking are:
> 1. Nothing selected; User selects radio button; User changes mind and can
> then unselect radio button (this would be done using javascript)
> 2. Add another option to each question: .I don't want to answer this
> question
>
> Now, just how wrong are these options (purist vs pragmatist)?
>
> --
>
> BNM Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://www.brightonnewmedia.org/options/bnmlist
>
> Archive Search - http://icanhaz.com/bnmarchive
>
> BNM powered by Wessex Networks:
> http://www.wessexnetworks.com
>