Two very minor cognitive-accessibility things on the credit card page

[codeman38]

On the page to enter credit card details for an order, I noticed two small issues that one might consider issues of cognitive accessibility, that seem like they could easily be fixed:

1. Somewhat related to Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names, the way the name fields are set up doesn't actually match the format it's in on my credit card. The name embossed on my credit card is in the form "John Q Public" (though with my real name, of course), and I'm never quite sure how to enter it on forms that have only a First Name and Last Name field; usually I end up entering "John Q" in the first name field. Unless your payment processor actually requires the name to be separated into first and last, it'd make much more sense to just have a single "name as listed on account" field, in my opinion.

2. My brain sometimes has a hard time remembering what numbers go with what month names. (This is not helped by the fact that the months were named when the year still started in March, so all the Latin root words are off by two!) My credit card lists its expiration date as 07/14, and so on any form where the months are listed by name rather than number, I have to scroll down line by line and count to make sure I have the right month. It seems like it'd make just as much sense to have the months listed as "01 - January", "02 - February", etc.; this is how I've seen it done on a number of other e-commerce sites.

Comments

[jumpuphigh]

I like both of these!

I wonder if it would make sense to post this to suggestions in addition to here.

[denise]

1) Unfortunately, yes, our processor does require names be sent in that fashion. It annoys me and causes no end of problems for some people who have multiple "first" or "last" names, trying to figure out how their bank has it in their system (I know someone who has two 'first' and three 'last' names, and she's always trying to figure out which have been shunted into the 'middle' name field). I wish we could fix it. :/

2) A very good suggestion, and I've opened a bug for it!