Timeline for Mandatory user input: Either an expiration date or "unlimited"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10 at 9:57 | comment | added | Morco | @ATW Is this a programming issue? If it is, you should ask for ideas on the stackoverflow forum. This forum is focused only on UX-related questions. Here we debate the UI that real users can see, not how developers built it. | |
| Aug 9 at 23:32 | comment | added | ATW | I‘m anyway no designer but a developer, so my thought does not come from "users won’t understand this design" but rather from like "such a design will cause problems and bugs for us as developer". It seems wrong to me to write "true" to the database when a user selects some "no"-option like "no expiring date". | |
| Aug 9 at 23:28 | comment | added | ATW | In fact, the "positive/negative-problem" is actually based on a different problem: How the selection of the checkbox will be saved in the corresponding entity. Either I can save it just as it is, i.e. as boolean flag isNotExpiring – as negated boolean value which may be very confusing (reading something like isNotExpiring=false). The alternative is to use an attribute isExpiring and to invert the selection before saving it – what also seems suboptimal and non-robust for me. That’s the actual problem why I put this positive/negative behaviour to discussion. | |
| Aug 9 at 23:01 | comment | added | ATW | Thank you very much! Sounds plausible… but what about the position? For me, it gives a feeling of a fourth input field which is not the case as it is the "second half" of the expiring date picker… | |
| Aug 9 at 22:16 | history | answered | Devin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |