[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: UI feedback from a Linux newbie
From:       "Tom Hoferek" <tomh () corel ! com>
Date:       2000-04-17 22:20:02
[Download RAW message or body]



Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Rik Hemsley wrote:
> >
> > I would like to see a new theme that fixes some of the problems that
> > are inherent in most existing ones. For example, most checkboxes use
> > crosses rather than ticks. This confuses people. They don't know
> > whether a cross means off or on.
>
> I must admit I've never come across people being confused by this, but
> ticks are certainly more logical.

Agreed. I haven't come across users that are confused by this, but the
affirmative nature of the tick or check certainly makes more sense than
the cross which has negative connotations.

>
>
> > Another example: radio buttons use
> > dots. What's that supposed to mean ?
>
> They are black & white representations of a physical button that
> pushes in. Of course, once you have colour, you can use shading to
> represent changes in height and the dot in radio buttons really only
> has value as tradition: its what people expect.

Agreed here as well. I have never come across any confusion with respect
to radio buttons. Lets not forget that these have been around for many
years so there are millions out there who have expectations in place.

>
>
> > They should use ticks like
> > checkboxes. They can indicate their changed functionality by their
> > shape. I have created a mockup of such a theme, which you can see
> > at http://www.geoid.clara.co.uk/controls.png
>
> Nice. I like them.

Yes, nice mockups but I don't agree with the use of ticks in radio
buttons. Suddenly two very different controls are starting to look a
little too similar. Seen side by side, a user would likely know whats
going on, but see a radio button in this style for the first time and I'm
sure some thought would be required to determine what the control is.
Maybe its not a really big deal, but I can't see the benefits of changing
to the tick outweighing the benefits of sticking with the dot. This could
be dangerously messing with people's expectations.

>
>
> What about three-state checkboxes? What should the third state look
> like?

I'm assuming the third state is necessary to indicate a mixed value where
the checkbox applies to a number of 'things', some of which are on and
some of which are off. In this case I think it makes sense to use a shaded
tick indicating that both on and off values are represented. Is this the
third state you are thinking of?

Tom

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]