From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 1E0A895CEC for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:17:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 00ED96AEE for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:17:15 +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 ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:17:14 +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 2AACC45566 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:17:14 +0100 (CET) From: Lukas Wagner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:17:10 +0100 Message-Id: <20230120111712.243308-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.133 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:17:15 -0000 Consider this an RFC to maybe spark up a discussion about this. In our UI, we've been a bit inconsistent with the use of checkboxes/text for `enabled` properties in table views. Looking through the UI, I've found that the following UI elements use a checkbox UI control to indicate wheter something is enabled or not: * backup job overview * APT repository overview * replication job overview While looking sleek, the problem with this is that from a user's perspective, a checkbox generally implies that it is operable by clicking on it (which we allow in other places, to make the matter even more confusing). Now, for the three UI elements mentioned above, I would say it is a good thing that they are not manipulateable from the overview, in order to avoid any accidental modifications. My suggestion would be, and this is what I've included in this patch series, to replace those checkboxes with Yes/No text. This is the way how it is done in many other places of the system. If we want something prettier, we could replace/augment the text with some fa-icon, e.g. a check-mark or an X - the important part is that they are visually distinct from ExtJS's checkboxes. Note: Firewall configuration also uses a checkbox, however there it is possible to enable/disable elements by clicking on the checkbox - so this can stay as IMHO. pve-manager: Lukas Wagner (1): ui: backup: replication: replace non-clickable checkbox with Yes/No text www/manager6/dc/Backup.js | 7 ++----- www/manager6/grid/Replication.js | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) proxmox-widget-toolkit: Lukas Wagner (1): repo view: replace non-clickable checkbox with Yes/No text src/node/APTRepositories.js | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) -- 2.30.2