| Jason: Certainly the "standard" form still has some friction and loss. Could some other arrangement have less? And isn't it great that someone else is experimenting to try to find it, so you only have to switch once it's established to actually be better? Adding to Jason's issue list: * Fill out everything including CVV on back, erase everything on front, option to switch to the blank back persists. * Not sure where it's supposed to be, but backside CVV for Mastercard seems positioned partially off the top left of the card on Chrome/Mac. * Card numbers highlights existing digits when tabbing/shift-tabbing, but expiration date does not. * If you Tab to a card number field with less than 4 digits, they are selected and typed over. If it autoadvances, they are not selected and your cursor is placed before them. This then does not autoadvance. * D/DD in expiration followed by Tab appears to be accepted but does not work. * Entering complete invalid Mastercard number, then clicking and entering expiration date (without name), then Tab leaves you apparently nowhere. But it's actually on the CVV, so if you type something to see where it goes, odd things happen. * Invalid date format, or expired date is not highlighted until you type the first character of name. If out of order, you have to erase previously entered name completely before highlighting recurs. * Tab from last field takes you off the form with no resolution. * Enter four digits in card number field, position cursor in middle, then tab to next field. Pressing delete erases the number where you last had the cursor, not the last digit. * Enter 4 numbers in card field, autoadvancing to next field. Shift-tab back. Tab forward. Delete erases all 4 number in previous field, rather than last as expected. I think it's a nifty idea, visually pretty when it works, potentially useful as a standard, but right now I feel like I hit bugs faster than I can type them up. Hard to say how useful it will be when actually working, but seems worth finishing to see. |
Yes.
> Could some other arrangement have less? And isn't it great that someone else is experimenting to try to find it, so you only have to switch once it's established to actually be better?
Yes. I say as much in a reply to the OP here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6143898