From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 2812095DC6 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:09:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F24CD8329 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:09:08 +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>; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:09:08 +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 10B5E4558E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:09:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <819b07ce-e9d2-b745-7a7b-e54e24c59e38@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:09:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/109.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> References: <20230120111712.243308-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230120111712.243308-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.010 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 -0.094 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 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: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:09:09 -0000 Am 20/01/2023 um 12:17 schrieb Lukas Wagner: > 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). 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? > 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. > > 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.. > > 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.. > > 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.