Rosemarie,

I would ask you to be very precise with him to define which buttons you have
found not to be well coded. I have flagged the coding of the "no" button in
his drop-down list. That is the only one which is not coded as "no" in the
option list but does appear as "No" in the displayed result when you choose
the third option. This implies that the code he is using to populate the
drop down list is at fault. The actual selection displays correctly for that
option.

There are no other faults with the coding of the questionnaire.

In fact, I have tried other questionnaires generated on this site on
previous occasions and they gave me great problems where you could not tell
if the option displayed in the question referred to the question that
preceded it or which followed it. He has nothing like that here.!The whole
questionnaire is solid. Another chronic problem with other questionnaires is
the editor program that provided to allow you to enter free form data. In
other questionnaires I have not been able to keep the cursor in track with
the reading cursor. On other occasions, spaces appear when there should be a
character that I have typed . The programmer has none of this here. His
editor is accurately in track with the review cursor, however he has managed
to do it!

I wish you would give Gene a full answer to his questions. It is rare that
we encounter a good accessible production like this questionnaire. You may
find that you have been burdened with the rare option that confounds the
programmer's efforts. We would like to help you get to the bottom of it. In
this way we can help you and the programmer to resolve the difficulty.


All the best,

Cearbhall

m +353 (0)833323487 Ph: _353 (0)1-2864623 e: cearbhall.omeadhra@...




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
I use the free version of Spam Reader to get rid of spam. The Professional
version doesn't have this disclaimer in outgoing emails.
Try Spam Reader (http://www.spam-reader.com) for free now!