Timeline for Adding a "none of the above" option to a list of checkboxes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2021 at 19:18 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 195 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2021 at 19:07 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 195 characters in body
|
| Feb 13, 2021 at 16:12 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://ux.stackexchange.com/ with https://ux.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 27, 2015 at 15:34 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Jan 23, 2015 at 20:15 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2014 at 13:33 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 76 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 18:05 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | Again, visual differences changes user behavior and their mental model (here related with selection dichotomy), I've already talk about that on my edit, and also made my point on accessibility at the bottom which is a clear example where visuals can modify users' thoughts about functionality. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 18:05 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | IMO: "a simple list" = a unnecessary long "floating " and dull list. Think about extensibility, what if they decide to add 6 more conditions, it would be awfully long and loose. The concern about "answering before knowing" is a good point but lose plenty importance after setting the first radio button as default, because for some reason [users tend to avoid decision making ](youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI#t=295) so setting a default would at least reduce their need / "worry" of taking an action. Anyway it's just POV, I partially agree with yours. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 13:35 | comment | added | Nathan Rabe | This seems overly complicated just to comply with various UX principles, when it won't make things significantly easier for the user. Where before there was a simple list, there are now multiple frames with nested, conditionally enabled contents. It forces users to think about the single question as two sub-questions. "Do I have any of these conditions? I don't know because I haven't read them yet." If the first radio is the default, there is no functional difference if none of the above is a checkbox with an action to clear the other boxes, but there is a visual difference. A bad one. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 13:24 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 13:16 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 12:41 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 12:39 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | I've made a big edit with some improvements based on the comments and also I added some clarifications that could be useful for understanding the first approach. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 12:33 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Too much to list it.
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 3:08 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | Really really nice!. I'm editing my answer and adding some nice things, including your mockup. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 2:53 | comment | added | dennislees | @rewobs - Good points about default selections and required actions. I think the remaining visual issues could be tidied up with with subtle gray background container that contained both radio buttons. (Balsamiq doesn't allow for subtle enough variations in gray, but you get the point) ux.dennislees.com/rewobs/mockup.png (.bmml & .png ux.dennislees.com/rewobs/rewobs.zip) | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 2:30 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
first radio button selected as default, because it saves 1 click and prevents "uncertain" behaviour as just selecting the first radio and nothing else
|
| Nov 14, 2014 at 2:24 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | @EvilClosetMonkey Good point, same doubt, because changing it will alter top-down flow (because in this case I think the user should read all the options and just then go for the "None", and placing "None" at last makes that motion more natural). | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 2:15 | comment | added | Nicholas Pappas | Would moving the "none of the above" above the "one or more" still provide a valid workflow? This would help with @dennislees concern of the visual relationship issue between them. The two radio buttons could easily lose their relationship if separated by a large block of checkboxes. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 1:31 | comment | added | Alejandro Veltri | In this case I consider that setting the first radio as default will be okay, because the "explicit" needed action is the 2nd, and setting the first one as default will save 1 click and probably avoid the most of the chances of the "what if the users decides to just click the first radio button?" situation. Btw, IMO that situation would be the same as the user leaving all checkboxes empty (in a design without radio buttons), you would have to validate it anyway. | |
| Nov 14, 2014 at 0:44 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 13, 2014 at 16:51 | comment | added | DA01 | @Izhaki I wouldn't call the recommendation idiotic. It's actually how radio buttons originally worked. It's just that with common usage in UI design, the omission of a default state is now common as well. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 16:43 | comment | added | DA01 | I think this is overcomplicating things a bit. Having to choose from two radio buttons a distance apart, along with the additional wording of them is adding necessary overhead, IMHO. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 15:02 | comment | added | dennislees | @Izhaki I agree with others here that this UI makes does nothing to clarify the issue. You suggest in a comment on my answer that we should consider mental models, errors, and recoverability, yet get behind a design that uses a bank of checkboxes inside a radio button option? This arguably breaks the visual relationship between the radio buttons, making the NoTA option seem to drift alone at the bottom. And what if the user decides they want to just click the first radio button? All options are selected? Box group gets highlighted? Error message? Overcomplicated. Makes little sense. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 12:48 | comment | added | Angelo.Hannes | @Izhaki This would probably made a good question. I can think of push buttons, three radio buttons, or a three state switch. But I agree that all those options are not ideal. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Izhaki | @Angelo.Hannes Could you propose a better design in the SO question you have referenced? I argue there isn't a better design, and really hope I'm wrong! | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 12:23 | comment | added | Angelo.Hannes | @Izhaki You probably should choose a different design then. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 12:07 | comment | added | Izhaki | @Angelo.Hannes Sorry to say - but the recommendation is idiotic. There are gazillions of examples where the user must make an exclusive choice, but you don't want to provide a default. Perhaps a prime example is likert scales - any default will prime the users. That's exactly why no browser implements the standard. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 | comment | added | André | I see some issues with this design, apart from the one mentioned by above. When you click the 1 or more radio button, but have not (yet) clicked any of the check boxes, you have a strange, inconsistent state. And logically, checking the None radio button should clear any checked boxes, but only with special coding will that be reversible. | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 11:22 | comment | added | Angelo.Hannes | Default state seems to violate many guides regarding radio buttons. e.g. RFC1866 "At all times, exactly one of the radio buttons in a set is checked.". See also ux.stackexchange.com/questions/37037/… and stackoverflow.com/questions/3457073/… | |
| Nov 13, 2014 at 5:09 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 13, 2014 at 2:49 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 13, 2014 at 2:25 | history | edited | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 13, 2014 at 2:19 | history | answered | Alejandro Veltri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
