LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB Archives

CHI-WEB Archives


CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB Home

CHI-WEB  October 2001, Week 2

CHI-WEB October 2001, Week 2

Subject:

Re: Online Form Standards? (Summary)

From:

Latrice Barnett <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Latrice Barnett <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:53:28 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (343 lines)

Hey there - here are the responses I got back from everyone.  Hope this
helps - and thank you all for your input; it has really helped a lot.  I
took out names/contact info, hope no offense.

- Latrice

Original email:
My company's marketing department is proposing a few changes to our web
style guidelines.  I am against these changes, for what I believe are
well-founded UI reasons. However, I'd like to run it by some of you experts
to get your input as I am fairly new to the usability arena.  Note: I'd love
your answers ASAP as this is for a meeting later today. Please respond to me
& I will post to the list.

All issues are relating to online forms on our internet site, for use by
customers:

1. Changing all instances of "ID" to "id" when prompting users to log in, or
referring to the log in process.
        To me, that just looks juvenile, and I nearly always see it as "ID"
or "e-mail address" or "login name".

2. With regard to required fields:
        A. Instead of "asterisk"/ "Field Name"/ "Text box" as ordering for
fields, they are proposing "Field Name"/ "Asterisk"/ "Text box". The problem
that my team sees with this is that users read left to right, and I'd think
most would find it easier if all required fields were notated in the same
spot all the way down.  The way that marketing is proposing would make the
asterisk fall in different places, based upon how long the Field Name is.
Also, I happen to think it looks clunkier & less professional.  (Please let
me know if that's not clear...)
        B. Instead of a red asterisk (isn't that the norm?) to designate
required fields, they are proposing a blue dot gif, or a red dot gif.  Is it
still an issue to have unnecessary images to slow down the loading of a
page, when it can be easily taken care of with a red asterisk?  Or is this
idea totally arcane?

Thanks in advance for your help, & feel free to look at our site to provide
feedback: www.brocade.com

Latrice Barnett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSES:

> 1. Changing all instances of "ID" to "id" when prompting users to log in,
>  or
> referring to the log in process.

ID is an abbreviation, and is most commonly capitalized in virtually all
contexts.

Indeed changing this to lower case will likely make it illegible, and
changes its meaning to one with Freudian implications!

This strikes me as a designer on an all lower case rampage. I'm not a fan
of this when its applied to real text, as opposed to business names etc.

> 2. With regard to required fields:
>         A. Instead of "asterisk"/ "Field Name"/ "Text box" as ordering for
> fields, they are proposing "Field Name"/ "Asterisk"/ "Text box".

>         B. Instead of a red asterisk (isn't that the norm?)

I wouldn't call this the 'norm', as I haven't seen it applied with any
real degree of universality. I personally much prefer the word 'required'
beside the field, in much smaller text (even if this text is almost
illegible to those of us who browse with tiny text, it's more direct than
having to look at a footnoted instruction)

As for your alignment issue, I prefer the 'they' arrangement, at least for
societies that read left to right, and would address alignment by right
justifying labels and left justifying input fields. My impression of your
current arrangement is that it will result in the following:
Title
*First Name
*Last Name
Company
etc.

In this case, the asteriks are all aligned, but the non-required fields
break them up. Same thing if you asterisk at the end of a right justified
word of course, but at least I read the word and *look* at the end of it.
In the left justified example, my eye falls first on the initial letter,
not the asterisk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. don't agree--id is a word which means 'unconscious division of psyche' --

ID could be a word but in the context it will be seen it is certainly an
abbreviation

2. a. agree with you that it should read "asterisk"/ "Field Name"/ "Text
box" for the same reasons you suggest

2. b. also agree with you on this issue.

you should still use an asterisk, and red is not mandatory but I think a
bright color -- orange or whatever you are using. if you're already using
red, leave it red. throughout the site, don't use too many colors to
indicate 'alert' or 'look here this is different' type of information. yes,
it is extremely annoying to have to wait! on a corporate site for any page
loads. it's different if it is a personal site, but business sites should
always be concerned with load time.


P.S. I notice on www.brocade.com that the very top of the page is a gray
value -- it looks a whole lot like an html page which has had no color
assigned to the background. I wonder if this is confusing to your users?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you can even have a reasonable conversation, you need to find out
*why* marketing wants these changes. That may affect anything I (or anyone
else) has to say. That caveat aside, to your specific points:

>1. Changing all instances of "ID" to "id" when prompting users to log in,
or
referring to the log in process.  To me, that just looks juvenile, and I
nearly always see it as "ID"
or "e-mail address" or "login name".

This depends. It's a relatively trivial issue, and one that likely isn't
worth the effort made in fighting the change. It may be a good candidate for
being seen as reasonable (you might give in on this one, and influence the
other issues you mention). Anytime your personal preferences enter into a
decision ("to me it seems...") then you're no different than the folks who
are proposing the change (since to them it seems fine). Lowercase letters
are actually more legible for large amounts of text - just take a look at a
legal agreement with sections set all in caps.

>2. With regard to required fields:
> A. Instead of "asterisk"/ "Field Name"/ "Text box"

I think this is good as is, and worth putting some effort into keeping the
status quo, for the reasons you describe.
There have been a couple long and lengthy discussions on this subject on
CHI-WEB in the past - check the archives at
http://www.sigchi.org/web and search for "required field" - or just hit this
URL:
http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?S2=chi-web&q=&s=required+field&f=&a=&b=

Basically, a large number of people agreed that keeping the asterisks lined
up was important and made scanning the form easier...

> B. Instead of a red asterisk (isn't that the norm?) to designate
required fields, they are proposing a blue dot gif, or a red dot gif.  Is it
still an issue to have unnecessary images to slow down the loading of a
page, when it can be easily taken care of with a red asterisk?  Or is this
idea totally arcane?

Well, again it depends. Do the math
<font color="red">*</font> is 26 bytes. A decent graphics person will give
you a graphic less than a 100 bytes, if all it is is a circle (the one I
just made is 77 bytes). The browser will load it once...so that's an extra
HTTP request, too. Then there's the weight of the IMG tag itself. The
asterisk *will* load faster, but not significantly so.

Given blue's association with links on the web, I'd try and steer clear of
using it to highlight something. Also make sure to have a "legend" at the
top of the form that has a "* = required field" or somesuch.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your points regarding nomenclature,
style, and location of the asterisk.

I've found that the asterisk, coupled with black bold
text, is the simplest and most effective way to
accentuate mandatory fields.

I'd recommend not using the color red, mostly because
it's a little harsh and unnecessarily contrasts too
much with the harmless objective of filling out a
form.

Depending on how you inform the user he/she has not
completed a mandatory field, red would probably be
more acceptable in this situation:

User completes the form and selects the "Submit"
button. If he/she has not completed a mandatory field,
the form would return with all completed information,
however, the empty, incomplete, or incorrect fields
would be replace with red text and two asterisks.

To help the user understand what just happened, it
would be helpful to have a message (in red) explaining
that he/she must correctly complete the fields
highlighted in red double asterisks.

Sorry I didn't get to you earlier. Hope you made it
out of the meeting with your sanity intact.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Definitely agree on the "ID" issue - for support, the book GUI Bloopers
has a reference to this.
2. The asterisk - there are no hard and fast standards for required fields,
but what I typically do is  Field Name / Asterisk / Text Box - but the
asterisk is right next to the text box.  Assuming the field names are left
aligned, and the text boxes are left aligned, I think this is easier than
putting the asterisk to the left of the Field Name.  I don't have the eye
tracking science to back this up, but I suspect that when people are
skimming the field names to determine what to enter, they tend to ignore
the asterisk, and then have to look back to see if it's required.
3. Do the red asterisk - it's becoming a common convention, instead of an
absolute standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went through much the same sort of thing w/r/t the use of the "dot" GIFs
vs. simple text asterisks. The reasoning given for the GIFs was that they
wanted to use a table to make sure the red/blue/fuchsia/whatever dots all
lined up vertically. Eventually, we were able to convince them (as part of a
larger usability test) that this wasn't a good idea, as it removed the
graphic too far from the text-field name, in the case of short field names.
Yeah, they all looked like good little soldiers and they all lined up nicely
vertically, but it was difficult to pair the "required field" graphic with
the text label it applied to, in many cases.

The download time wasn't much of an issue, because the graphic files were so
small, but what **WAS** an issue was the fact that it was just one more
asset to track --- and potentially lose, which happened more than once! We'd
think everything was all taken care of, we'd send a few dozen pages to the
live server, only to discover we were missing a crucial (if small) graphic.
Using text-only asterisks took care of that one, at least.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a better question to ask is how the hell do we keep these marketing
people from meddling with the things that have absolutely nothing to do with
their jobs?
(that's my personal favorite. - LB)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not much of a "UI specialist" -  I read this list  to learn more - but I
do know a few things about communication.  And this is probably too late,
but I do think I know why the Marketing Dept. asked for these changes:

>1. Changing all instances of "ID" to "id" when prompting users to log in,
or
>referring to the log in process.

-  " i "  is clearer than I - let's say you're using an arial font, is " I "
that a Captial i or a small "L" ?

Sure, you and I any know what it is, but  "id" is  technically clearer then
"ID". Not by much, but hey.

>        A. Instead of "asterisk"/ "Field Name"/ "Text box" as ordering for
>fields, they are proposing "Field Name"/ "Asterisk"/ "Text box". The
problem
>that my team sees with this is that users read left to right, and I'd think

<snip>

> Instead of a red asterisk (isn't that the norm?) to designate
>required fields, they are proposing a blue dot gif, or a red dot gif.  Is
it

Ha! They're doing both of these on purpose - I'll wager that a LOT of
customers are only giving the basic required information - by making the dot
blue, and NOT having it all aligned to spot the required field easily,
they're hoping to "persuade" (cynics might even say "trick") more people
into giving all the information that the form asks for.   The more info
Marketing gets, the better they can target their customers... but they know
they can't make all the info that they'd *like* to have required, because
that would be too draconian for some customers.

An unaligned blue dot is more "friendly" than an "angry" red star - the blue
dot makes the required fields more subtle. And if you're not really
"noticing" the required fields, maybe you'll just fill all the fields out...

Can you do me (or the list) a favour and report back in a few months whether
or not MORE people are giving NON-required info because of the change?

Either way, I think they've got you on these changes. At least me know if
those are the same reasons they gave you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best of luck in your work there. My quick comments:
1. "id" is an element of the facets of a person's psychological makeup in
Freudian terms: id, ego, and superego. "ID" is an abbreviation (brevity code
in some more exact jargon) for the term "identification."
2. There is no standard on marking fields as required. Although asterisks
have been used a lot, so have bolding the field labels, changing the color
to a dominant one, and creating symbols such as the dot you mentioned. In
all cases, however, it is critical that you provide a key to the code: State
very clearly in the beginning of the form that "Asterisks (*) indicate
fields you must complete" or "You must complete fields that are bold" or
"The blue square (o) indicates a field you must complete."
3. The order of indicator doesn't really matter, AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT.
That is, if you use a marker to indicate required field, make sure it's easy
to notice. Once again, if the fields are bold, for example, then order
really doesn't matter. The question is, are users looking for required
fields first, or are they looking for the labels first?
All the best!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These seem like changes for the sake of change. Is there some
business logic underlying all these seemingly cosmetic changes?
Have customers been complaining about the forms and these are the
changes requested by the feedback? Are they confused about the ID?

The reason I'm being so nosey is that there must be SOME business
motivation for the changes. If you can uncover the motive you could
probably address it in a more relevant way.

I doubt that the boss woke up one morning and said "Let's do some random
changes to the Web Site." (or did he/she?!)

To address your questions:

ID is correct. Initials are always capitalized (CIA, ASAP, FYI, ETC)

http://www.rit.edu/~932www/style_guide/abbreviations.html

per he asterisk. Here's how Sony does it.

http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer/ss5/feedback.shtml

They use the field name/asterisk/field in a more aesthetically pleasing way.

Hope all of this is helpful to you.

Latrice Barnett
Web Services/IT
Brocade Communications
www.brocade.com

    --------------------------------------------------------------
           Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
               About CHI-WEB: http://www.sigchi.org/web/
         Vacations, holidays and other subscription changes:
             http://www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html#vacations
    --------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
November 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
September 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
December 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 2
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager