Putting asterisks on required fields is a bad practice that designers must stop doing. Although this practice is outdated, it’s still quite common.
The idea is to inform users which fields they need to fill out, but most fields on forms are required. Therefore, users come to a form expecting to fill out most fields. Adding a distracting red asterisk to every field label is unnecessary. It's better to mark optional fields instead.
The asterisks also give users the perception that an error has occurred before they even type their input. This false alarm can turn some users off immediately and make them think twice about continuing.
Indicating which fields are required should only come in an error message after users leave the field blank and submit the form. If users are already filling out a required field, there's no need to alarm them with an asterisk. It only creates visual clutter and distraction when users scan field labels.
I don't know where this user research is coming from. Seems you want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. From what I know, users expect * for compulsory fields. If not *, then what else would it be? Imagine the efforts for users to learn something else?
Agree. I've lost count how many times I fill out fields that are required only to find out after I try to submit a form. Users have grown accustomed to identify asterisk as required. Frustration because of lack of clarity or breaking expectations is the worst UX you can have.
Where? Deductions require some initial universal premise or general principle. Not seeing anything like that in this article.
And what's with the implied universal truth to the conclusion btw? Some actual user research would show you how this (and any incremental UI change really) will yield a more nuanced result than just "this good, other bad".
This doesn't feel credible at all. Is your paid content also like this?
There's plenty of premise and principle that goes into my deductions that's usually detailed in my paid content.
This is a discussion piece that doesn't go into detail about why users can mistake a red asterisk for an error message or why asterisks can distract users from labels. But if you're a critical thinker, I'm sure can see there's a connection there.
I mean, how elementary do I have to be to explain it? Asterisks = extra visual element. You put a lot of them on the page, it can cause a distraction. Error messages = red. Red asterisks can look like an error message was triggered. This isn't hard to deduct to be honest.
Although I've done user research in the past, I'm not a professional researcher. If a nuanced result is something you want, I invite you to do the testing yourself.
It might not "feel" credible to you because you don't see user research, but what matters to me is that my deductions are backed by logical premise, principle, and experience. In this particular case, they are.
Let's leave the assumptions aside and get to the facts. I'll base my arguments on the 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.
H1: Visibility of System Status
By not informing users in advance which fields are mandatory, we mislead them. Is that the purpose of the form? I don't think so. So let's not assume that users know what is mandatory and then leave the screen full of red alerts.
H2: Match Between the System and the Real World
Why reinvent the wheel and do something the user doesn't know? For decades, the asterisk has had a purpose in the context of forms, on the web, in applications, in printed forms in hospitals, schools and businesses in general. We don't need to re-educate the user about the use of asterisks.
Other heuristics that apply and don't need explanation:
You are introducing a dark pattern by removing information about which fields are required where they are required. Downplaying non-required fields will (I was going to say encourage, but the real word I’m looking for is) trick people to give up information they don’t need or that may even be illegal to ask. I’m not sure where you get that the asterisks are an outdated practice, but if the concern is “alarming people with big, scary asterisks”, a better way would be to have a short list of required fields followed by a second series that are clearly marked as “not required” next to a big SKIP button.
Telling the user the form is required AFTER they attempt to submit is rather bad UX. Opinions on asterisk are divided but there's no denying that it's actually a convention now. A lot of people know what it means. This post is a tad bit dramatic and hardly based on facts
I disagree. It is more user-friendly to add an asterisk (that is understood by non-native speakers) on required fields than adding the word "optional" to your forms, especially when your goal is to localize your site. So, keep the asterisks. It's a symbol that most users expect globally. Less is more.
Agree with Piscalux. This post is opinionated and there’s no factual data supporting that asterisks need to stop being used altogether. With any product, test it with your users or visitors and let that determine what works for your form or not.
Wow. The comments aren't on the same page this time. I'm conflicted. I personally identify with the feeling of clutter, redundancy, and slight alarm (if the asterisk is red). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the form fields are there to be filled in. Some testing results I found indicates that users fill in fields to avoid errors, but if you ask too much, they maybe uneasy and get a negative impression of the brand. If one doesn't want to leave people to assume, they can state above that all fields are required unless otherwise indicated. I also read about some prototype testing where users favored when forms said "(optional)" in context over other visual indicators (but it didn't specify what other indicators they tested).
If most of the form is required then don't add the asterisks. You can add the text (optional) for items that are. If most of it is not required, then it's ok add them and include the contextual error state /messaging to inform them they need to fill out the field(s).
Far worse than asterisks are the red-letter warnings that appear as soon as one clicks into a fillable field – ie. that the email address is incomplete or some other message – that should ONLY apply AFTER the field has been tabbed out of.
Love this topic and the dialogue! For me, I lean more towards more of a hybrid approach. Let's consider the size of the form and how many fields are *required versus (optional). If only a couple fields are optional, I like the clean approach of just displaying (optional) next to those field labels. Conversely, if only a few fields are required, use (required). My thinking is that this treatment indicates by deduction, all other fields must be the opposite (required<>optional)(optional<>required). If it's more of an even split, I prefer the traditional "*Indicates a required field" messaging at the top of the form along with individual asterix displayed on required field label. Like many have pointed out, this is the common standard. Thanks everyone.
Only relying on error messages on the fields can sometimes be frustrating when the field with the error has moved out of the viewport and the user click on submit. The user then needs to go searching for the offending field. That's an even worse UX than adding asterisks IMHO.
Certain UI mechanisms are entrenched, well known and accepted - there really is no need to mess with that. Next article will be about how we should not use "buttons" anymore?
We have adopted this practice and put 'Optional' next any fields that aren't compulsory to guide the user. I do believe in needing some guidance before submitting a form and getting stuck, but this seemed to get round it for us so far.
Agreed, I believe that making the fields optional instead of making others mandatory can help in a certain way to fill the fields. Its like telling the customer we have already discounted you on some form filling fields. Its looks like an optimistic approach to me useful in case where we need a lots of data from some unknown people for lead generation or similar scenario.
And one drawback is that as everyone suggested learning curve for the users is there to be cracked for it.
I think its denpend on context, in some usecase, our user have to use driffence program or software that have the same asterisk mark on the form label, changing the design on the new program may cause conflict for their mental model
This is how I see it: instead of asterisk - it doesn't mean anything if you're not computer literate - use (required) in italics, which would also align with (optional), where the case.
I don't know where this user research is coming from. Seems you want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. From what I know, users expect * for compulsory fields. If not *, then what else would it be? Imagine the efforts for users to learn something else?
Agree. I've lost count how many times I fill out fields that are required only to find out after I try to submit a form. Users have grown accustomed to identify asterisk as required. Frustration because of lack of clarity or breaking expectations is the worst UX you can have.
When users falsely perceive errors on a form because of the red asterisks, that's a problem.
When users pay more attention to asterisks than reading the field labels, that's a problem. Asterisks peppered everywhere are a visual distraction.
When users are busy wondering which fields are required to fill out instead of focused on filling out the form, that's a problem.
Am I trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist? I don't think so. Asterisks on field labels affect user perception, attention, and mindset.
So what you're saying is that there's no user research behind this. You're making bunch of assumptions.
No, a bunch of deductions.
Where? Deductions require some initial universal premise or general principle. Not seeing anything like that in this article.
And what's with the implied universal truth to the conclusion btw? Some actual user research would show you how this (and any incremental UI change really) will yield a more nuanced result than just "this good, other bad".
This doesn't feel credible at all. Is your paid content also like this?
There's plenty of premise and principle that goes into my deductions that's usually detailed in my paid content.
This is a discussion piece that doesn't go into detail about why users can mistake a red asterisk for an error message or why asterisks can distract users from labels. But if you're a critical thinker, I'm sure can see there's a connection there.
I mean, how elementary do I have to be to explain it? Asterisks = extra visual element. You put a lot of them on the page, it can cause a distraction. Error messages = red. Red asterisks can look like an error message was triggered. This isn't hard to deduct to be honest.
Although I've done user research in the past, I'm not a professional researcher. If a nuanced result is something you want, I invite you to do the testing yourself.
It might not "feel" credible to you because you don't see user research, but what matters to me is that my deductions are backed by logical premise, principle, and experience. In this particular case, they are.
Let's leave the assumptions aside and get to the facts. I'll base my arguments on the 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design.
H1: Visibility of System Status
By not informing users in advance which fields are mandatory, we mislead them. Is that the purpose of the form? I don't think so. So let's not assume that users know what is mandatory and then leave the screen full of red alerts.
H2: Match Between the System and the Real World
Why reinvent the wheel and do something the user doesn't know? For decades, the asterisk has had a purpose in the context of forms, on the web, in applications, in printed forms in hospitals, schools and businesses in general. We don't need to re-educate the user about the use of asterisks.
Other heuristics that apply and don't need explanation:
4: Consistency and Standards
5: Error Prevention
6: Recognition Rather than Recall
You are introducing a dark pattern by removing information about which fields are required where they are required. Downplaying non-required fields will (I was going to say encourage, but the real word I’m looking for is) trick people to give up information they don’t need or that may even be illegal to ask. I’m not sure where you get that the asterisks are an outdated practice, but if the concern is “alarming people with big, scary asterisks”, a better way would be to have a short list of required fields followed by a second series that are clearly marked as “not required” next to a big SKIP button.
Telling the user the form is required AFTER they attempt to submit is rather bad UX. Opinions on asterisk are divided but there's no denying that it's actually a convention now. A lot of people know what it means. This post is a tad bit dramatic and hardly based on facts
I disagree. It is more user-friendly to add an asterisk (that is understood by non-native speakers) on required fields than adding the word "optional" to your forms, especially when your goal is to localize your site. So, keep the asterisks. It's a symbol that most users expect globally. Less is more.
Agree with Piscalux. This post is opinionated and there’s no factual data supporting that asterisks need to stop being used altogether. With any product, test it with your users or visitors and let that determine what works for your form or not.
UX movement, this post is not it...
Where's the research backing up any of this ?
And since when does aNYone interpret an asterisk as an error ??
Wow. The comments aren't on the same page this time. I'm conflicted. I personally identify with the feeling of clutter, redundancy, and slight alarm (if the asterisk is red). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the form fields are there to be filled in. Some testing results I found indicates that users fill in fields to avoid errors, but if you ask too much, they maybe uneasy and get a negative impression of the brand. If one doesn't want to leave people to assume, they can state above that all fields are required unless otherwise indicated. I also read about some prototype testing where users favored when forms said "(optional)" in context over other visual indicators (but it didn't specify what other indicators they tested).
If most of the form is required then don't add the asterisks. You can add the text (optional) for items that are. If most of it is not required, then it's ok add them and include the contextual error state /messaging to inform them they need to fill out the field(s).
Far worse than asterisks are the red-letter warnings that appear as soon as one clicks into a fillable field – ie. that the email address is incomplete or some other message – that should ONLY apply AFTER the field has been tabbed out of.
Thank Anthony you for bringing this sensitive topic 🙂. Discussions are always interesting. My 5 cents :
1) A form should only contain mandatory fields, as much as possible. If not, you bother user with unnecessary inputs.
2) Consistency : in the same app, you cannot change the rules depending on the content of the form.
3) the word “optional” increases the length of the labels, that can be an issue sometimes
4) Having said that, I’m still in favor of the asterisk (before the label, but not red). Detailed explanations here : https://www.nngroup.com/articles/required-fields/
Love this topic and the dialogue! For me, I lean more towards more of a hybrid approach. Let's consider the size of the form and how many fields are *required versus (optional). If only a couple fields are optional, I like the clean approach of just displaying (optional) next to those field labels. Conversely, if only a few fields are required, use (required). My thinking is that this treatment indicates by deduction, all other fields must be the opposite (required<>optional)(optional<>required). If it's more of an even split, I prefer the traditional "*Indicates a required field" messaging at the top of the form along with individual asterix displayed on required field label. Like many have pointed out, this is the common standard. Thanks everyone.
Only relying on error messages on the fields can sometimes be frustrating when the field with the error has moved out of the viewport and the user click on submit. The user then needs to go searching for the offending field. That's an even worse UX than adding asterisks IMHO.
I'd rather add "(optional)" to any non-required fields.
I follow a simple practice.
- If the form is short and all fields are mandatory, then a simple message "all fields are mandatory."
- if the form has more that 5 fields then use asterisk to avoid confusion as then not all fields are mandatory
Certain UI mechanisms are entrenched, well known and accepted - there really is no need to mess with that. Next article will be about how we should not use "buttons" anymore?
We have adopted this practice and put 'Optional' next any fields that aren't compulsory to guide the user. I do believe in needing some guidance before submitting a form and getting stuck, but this seemed to get round it for us so far.
Agreed, I believe that making the fields optional instead of making others mandatory can help in a certain way to fill the fields. Its like telling the customer we have already discounted you on some form filling fields. Its looks like an optimistic approach to me useful in case where we need a lots of data from some unknown people for lead generation or similar scenario.
And one drawback is that as everyone suggested learning curve for the users is there to be cracked for it.
I think its denpend on context, in some usecase, our user have to use driffence program or software that have the same asterisk mark on the form label, changing the design on the new program may cause conflict for their mental model
This is how I see it: instead of asterisk - it doesn't mean anything if you're not computer literate - use (required) in italics, which would also align with (optional), where the case.
I think this needs to be tested for different ratios of compulsory or optional with the * or optional.
Seems like an overkill to initiate a mental model change when mandatory fields are the ones that need more attention anyway and not vice versa.
I agree with this opinion as I also found this very daunting at times as a user.