You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When the user chooses a court from the pre-selected options based on the address they entered, the drop-down selector with the full list is disabled, but the required indicator asterisk still appears:
This could be confusing to some users, since the asterisk and the "Select…" text suggests they ought to do something, but they can't because the field is disabled.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Go to the choose a court (courts matching provided address were found) screen after entering a valid address
Select any of the courts shown
Scroll down to drop-down selector below "Does the list above look wrong?"
See that the red asterisk is still showing even though the selector field is disabled
Expected behavior
The red asterisk should not show up when the field is disabled.
Additional context
I used CSS to solve the problem for a small claims interview for the Massachusetts Trial Court. Here is the pull request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
samglover
changed the title
Court selector should not be required when disabled
Fields should not indicate they are required if they are disabled
Nov 26, 2024
Describe the bug
When the user chooses a court from the pre-selected options based on the address they entered, the drop-down selector with the full list is disabled, but the required indicator asterisk still appears:
This could be confusing to some users, since the asterisk and the "Select…" text suggests they ought to do something, but they can't because the field is disabled.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
choose a court (courts matching provided address were found) screen
after entering a valid addressExpected behavior
The red asterisk should not show up when the field is disabled.
Additional context
I used CSS to solve the problem for a small claims interview for the Massachusetts Trial Court. Here is the pull request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: