double email process

24 Feb 2006 - 3:02am
8 years ago
7 replies
850 reads
stauciuc
2006

I have to enter my e-mail address very often, I guess we all do. I always type it right. And I don't even copy-paste(imagine the excise:) ) Those twin entry fields have never helped me. Maybe they could help, once in one hundred times, but I guess we're back to the 'Are you sure you want to save this file' discussion :)

..There must be other ways to implement this. I find the auto-complete feature very helpful. If I'm not mistaking, the browser 'remembers' sets of entries for textboxes with the same name, nomather the website. So familiar names for those textboxes could help. Or any other way of ensuring auto-conplete works..

Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
designer

I saw that some have said that the double email entry process (to minimize
email errors) is stupid and should stop since copying and pasting between
fields can pass the error to the second field. The problem is that wheover
implemented the solution that way has caused it to be useless- the correct
way to implement this is to not allow pasting into the the fields and force
users to enter it manually twice.

--
:::........::::...::......:::....::::...::............:::::
Amnon Dekel
VP User Experience - TriPlay Inc.
Cell: +972 54 813-8160
:::........::::...::......:::....::::...::............:::::

---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

Comments

24 Feb 2006 - 5:54am
Meara NI
2005

Sergiu Tauciuc wrote:
> I have to enter my e-mail address very often ... Those twin entry
fields
> have never helped me. ... There must be other ways to implement this.

Hi Sergiu,

A colleague pointed me to an interesting example of e-mail address
validation with Ajax at this UK house price website <
http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/signup.html >.

You type your e-mail address once and it goes off and checks that it's
coming from a valid domain. If it can't find the domain it flags it up,
but still lets you continue.

In itself it doesn't guarantee valid addresses, but it certainly seems
like less grief from the visitor's point of view and will pick up typos
after the @.

Cheers,

Nick.
.................................................
Nick Meara Senior Systems Implementer
Information Systems Aston
Aston University, Birmingham

24 Feb 2006 - 10:40am
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

>
> A colleague pointed me to an interesting example of e-mail address
> validation with Ajax at this UK house price website <
> http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/signup.html >.

That's a great example of how web forms *should* work.

The only real problem I see is that the checkmarks remain if you go back to
a field and remove your entry from it. Empty fields should show an X like
the invalid fields do. But notice that the checkmarks and X's only display
on required fields. That's a nice touch.

-r-

24 Feb 2006 - 11:43am
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

I didn't notice the failing validation - that's pretty funny.

You wouldn't need AJAX to validate the address, just a Javascript function
that checks for all the parts of the email addres (a string, an "@", another
string, a ".", and a domain extension). you just fire the JS function when
the field loses focus and, if it validates, stick a checkmark next to the
field. No XML is needed.

-r-

On 2/24/06, Andrew Hedges <andrew at clearwired.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
>
> >> A colleague pointed me to an interesting example of e-mail address
> >> validation with Ajax at this UK house price website <
> >> http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/signup.html >.
> >
> > That's a great example of how web forms *should* work.
> >
> > The only real problem I see is that the checkmarks remain if you go
> > back to
> > a field and remove your entry from it. Empty fields should show an
> > X like
> > the invalid fields do. But notice that the checkmarks and X's only
> > display
> > on required fields. That's a nice touch.
>
> That, and the fact that the validation doesn't actually work
> correctly. Go to the form and just tab through the fields. Despite
> being required, email and re-type password validate when left empty
> and username doesn't provide any feedback whatsoever.
>
> That withstanding, I agree that it's a nice example of giving
> immediate feedback to the user. I didn't look closely at the code,
> but Ajax certainly seems like overkill for validating an email address.
>
> Cheers,
> -Andrew
> -----
> Andrew Hedges, Clearwired Web Services
> andrew at clearwired.com / http://clearwired.com/
>

24 Feb 2006 - 1:01pm
Dan Zlotnikov
2004

I believe this one validates the actual domain name against the whois
database. my address at gmail.com cleared, but gmal.com got a warning.
I thought there was a way to validate the actual username on the mail
server, but I guess that's being blocked by all the major servers now,
to prevent spam.

Dan

> You wouldn't need AJAX to validate the address, just a Javascript function
> that checks for all the parts of the email addres (a string, an "@", another
> string, a ".", and a domain extension). you just fire the JS function when
> the field loses focus and, if it validates, stick a checkmark next to the
> field. No XML is needed.
>
> -r-

--
WatCHI
http://www.acm.org/chapters/watchi

24 Feb 2006 - 11:14am
Andrew Hedges
2006

On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

>> A colleague pointed me to an interesting example of e-mail address
>> validation with Ajax at this UK house price website <
>> http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/signup.html >.
>
> That's a great example of how web forms *should* work.
>
> The only real problem I see is that the checkmarks remain if you go
> back to
> a field and remove your entry from it. Empty fields should show an
> X like
> the invalid fields do. But notice that the checkmarks and X's only
> display
> on required fields. That's a nice touch.

That, and the fact that the validation doesn't actually work
correctly. Go to the form and just tab through the fields. Despite
being required, email and re-type password validate when left empty
and username doesn't provide any feedback whatsoever.

That withstanding, I agree that it's a nice example of giving
immediate feedback to the user. I didn't look closely at the code,
but Ajax certainly seems like overkill for validating an email address.

Cheers,
-Andrew
-----
Andrew Hedges, Clearwired Web Services
andrew at clearwired.com / http://clearwired.com/

6 Mar 2006 - 11:41am
Marc Chung
2006

What if the interface accepted an email address, with a note that a
signup link (uniquely identifiable) or a temporary password would be
sent to the given email address. That way, if the link was ever used,
or if someone logged in with the username/temp password, you could
guarantee that an email address was valid.

For instance, this would handle situations like gmail plus-addressing
which threw off a lot of email validating functions, including the one
at http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/signup.html.

--Marc

On 2/24/06, Dan Zlotnikov <whatsinaname at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> I believe this one validates the actual domain name against the whois
> database. my address at gmail.com cleared, but gmal.com got a warning.
> I thought there was a way to validate the actual username on the mail
> server, but I guess that's being blocked by all the major servers now,
> to prevent spam.
>
> Dan
>
> > You wouldn't need AJAX to validate the address, just a Javascript function
> > that checks for all the parts of the email addres (a string, an "@", another
> > string, a ".", and a domain extension). you just fire the JS function when
> > the field loses focus and, if it validates, stick a checkmark next to the
> > field. No XML is needed.
> >
> > -r-
>
>
> --
> WatCHI
> http://www.acm.org/chapters/watchi
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

6 Mar 2006 - 6:46pm
Juan Lanus
2005

> What if the interface accepted an email address, with a note that
> a signup link (uniquely identifiable) or a temporary password
> would be sent to the given email address.
Marc,
It depends on who is the validation trying to protect, and fro what problem.

The OurProperty's email validation is to protect the users form their
typos in the domain part of the address. The scenario is one that
entered and erroneous address and is sitting forever waiting for a
answer from the site.

The email answer with a one-time link (which BTW is a really great
thing) is to protect somebody else from the bad guys acting in their
name, for example subscribing them to a lot of unwanted groups.

I don't like the idea of making the user write their email twice. It
seems somehow like an abuse, to force them to accept such a burden:
"You have to do this or else I don't let you in. You have to do it
twice because you (silly user always) make errors."
--
Juan Lanus
TECNOSOL
Argentina

Syndicate content Get the feed