From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <l.wagner@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C750596120 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:02:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A10DE25A23 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:01:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:01:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3921745CAB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:01:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <f4d665f0-9fb9-1761-f82c-43373c58b046@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:01:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230120111712.243308-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <819b07ce-e9d2-b745-7a7b-e54e24c59e38@proxmox.com> <24dc416d-ffc6-63eb-91ea-f8a0abdd65fa@proxmox.com> <dc077dc9-8530-a96f-c661-b45b433e4e1e@proxmox.com> From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <dc077dc9-8530-a96f-c661-b45b433e4e1e@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.667 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.149 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager/widget-toolkit 0/2] ui: replace non-clickable checkboxes with Yes/No text X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:02:13 -0000 On 1/23/23 11:57, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Ok, tbh. I have some faint memory that I saw some comment about this in the > distant past; IIRC it was mostly due to the the "writeable" firewall and the > "read-only" other usages using both the exact same display. > My bad, there actually was a report about this, Leo kindly showed me the entry in Bugzilla just now [1]. >> >> I have played around a bit with FA icons, and I think I have found something that is visually >> appealing, fixed-width and where it is IMO clear that it is not an actionable UI item. >> For now, I think the nicest option is `fa-check` for enabled rows and `fa-minus` for disabled ones. >> I've created an A:B comparison [1] between the old checkboxes and the new icons. >> Please let me know what you think. >> > > looks better than the status quo, especially UX-wise, and would be an option for > icon only. So, if nobody else has hard feelings (but ideally somewhat rationally > argued) for going with text over icon I'd go for your combination check-mark/minus > icon combination. > Ok great, then I'll post a v2 with the icon-version soon. Thanks! [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4350 -- - Lukas