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 DB9B1960F3 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:47:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B17552568F for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:46:58 +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 ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:46:57 +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 77E1645CC7 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:46:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <24dc416d-ffc6-63eb-91ea-f8a0abdd65fa@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:46:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230120111712.243308-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <819b07ce-e9d2-b745-7a7b-e54e24c59e38@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Lukas Wagner In-Reply-To: <819b07ce-e9d2-b745-7a7b-e54e24c59e38@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 3.204 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -5 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high trust 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. [imgur.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:47:28 -0000 On 1/20/23 15:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> 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). > > If it's editable it gets a pointer cursor, else not. > I see were you're comming from, but do we also have any complaints on official > channels w.r.t. this? No complaints, it's just something that I've run into myself repeatedly, e.g. when enabling the no-subscription repo via the GUI. I think it's one of those UX problems that might be annoying to some users (including myself), however it's not severe enough that people care to report this in the bug tracker. > > 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. > > yeah, making those editable should be avoided in general, and if over a action > toggle button, not the column that shows its current state. > Agreed. >> >> 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. > > I would not be completely opposed, and it might be indeed a UX plus for some; > but it also has it's merits to have a language agnostic fixed width icon.. > 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. >> >> 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. > > Yeah, I'd have a slight preference towards icons, but using x for disabled > is far from ideal (denotes errors); checkboxes are best for that - and there's > quite some prior art of disabled checkboxes for showing the state.. > You are right about the `x` symbols; that's why I've settled for `-` in my new approach. >> >> 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. > > might want to move that to a action column with a explicit (but icon only) > toggle button. I agree, a button would probably a nice for that. Thanks! [1] https://imgur.com/a/tsXegNF -- - Lukas