3

I'm involved in a software development project for which an application entry page is required.

I received a model for implementation of that page which includes checkboxes which are always disabled and selected. The purpose of those checkboxes is to give information to users about some items which are always included in a contract.

I am against this model, because I believe these kinds of information should be given via a document which is printed by users and handed out to customers after registering an application in the system. In fact this document is indicating a contract and includes all policies of the contract. Those checkboxes are parts of such policies and I think it's not good practice to embed such information in the application form page which is filled out by expert agents.

Improve this question
3
  • There seem to be two questions here - one regarding the appropriateness of using a disabled (but checked) check box as a generic form element, and the second question regarding the workflow of having details viewable by the member of staff only with pre-ticked check boxes with the potential that the applicant might not actually receive this information (where the form element being disabled in irrelevant). The title and the tags suggest the first question but the body of the question indicates the second. Which one would you like an answer to?
    – kwah
    Jan 21, 2017 at 18:04
  • I could quite happily answer the first, but if it's the second then I'll leave that to others to handle.
    – kwah
    Jan 21, 2017 at 18:06
  • I mainly mean the second one, but also interested for an answer to the first one. However, as here one should be asked, I point to the second one.
    – Barpa
    Jan 23, 2017 at 22:01

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
4

Leaving aside how to include such kind of options in the case you explain, I'll comment on the disabled checkboxes.

A checkbox which is only informative should be different than an interactable checkbox.

As far as I know, a disabled checkbox means that the option is not enabled, it doesn't matter if it is checked or not because it is not enabled.

So to me it doesn't sound like a good practice to use a disabled checkbox to indicate an option that is supposed to be enabled and checked.

W3 on disabled controls:

(...) it cannot receive user input nor will its value be submitted with the form.

My interpretation is that the value it has (true or false in this case) shouldn't matter if it is disabled.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Disabled doesn't necessarily mean "not available" - instead I'd argue that it means not editable/may not be changed.
    – kwah
    Jan 21, 2017 at 17:58
  • Thanks for the feedback @kwah :) I checked the specs, I think it implies what I meant. Ill edit the answer.
    – Alvaro
    Jan 21, 2017 at 18:06
  • Ah I see - your answer is specific to the implementation details of HTML web forms, and that since they should not be submitted with the form data by default then it is inconsequential given that the server will never see the value (assuming the values aren't retrieved using JavaScript and sent via an AJAX request for example).
    – kwah
    Jan 21, 2017 at 18:17
  • The reason I raise it is because I can see a valid use case e.g. if the form contains a "new contract" or "pending management approval" or similar which should be ticked when creating something new, then edited on another form (or by someone with the appropriate authorisation level) for instance. In this case it is specifically HTML forms where this may be an issue given that the status of the checkbox is not submitted to the server.
    – kwah
    Jan 21, 2017 at 18:19
  • In fact in my case, value of the checkboxes doesn't affect anything. They should be there (ticked and not editable) to inform users about some terms of contract (e.g., some items which are included). However, users are expert agents and by default should know everything about the policies. Customers who make contracts only receive a printed document (e.g., contract) which includes every term of the policy in details.
    – Barpa
    Jan 23, 2017 at 22:27
3

It is the affordance of the checkbox which hints at its interaction and purpose. The only values are True and False.

However, when it is disabled the affordance is now saying this is not available at this time, which implies it might be available later.

Typically you should disable the checkbox when the user can do something elsewhere on the page which would enable the checkbox, e.g. the disabled state communicates that this is a temporary state. For example, often applications provide a trigger to an edit mode which now enables the checkbox.

I find it annoying when a checkbox is disabled because I am now unnecessarily thinking about why it is disabled.

If a checkbox can never be enabled, then maybe you need to rethink the design because the disabled affordance can cause confusion, i.e. I'm thinking why is is disabled? Why can't I enable it? What do I need to do to enable it?

Most implementations I have see have used disabled checkboxes simply to make it easy for the developer to build, i.e. it is simpler to code - you either have access or not, and if not then disable the checkbox. This is cheaper and easier to build and test vs developing some mechanism that replaces a disabled checkbox with a piece of static text (I have seen this example many times).

However, there are examples all over the place that show checkboxes that can never be interacted with, and it does cause confusion.

Improve this answer
2

No, it is not.

Controls like checkboxes are to be actionable. It must be so frustrating for users wanting to change that "value" if they disagree with the statement.

For purely informative content the interface should be presented in a more straightforward way.

Improve this answer
1

This behavior is very common in installers. The main installands are indicated by just such a checked-and-disabled box, the message being that you get all of them whether you want them or not. Is it a good idea? I find it annoying but not misleading.

Is it a good idea in contract provisions? There I think it depends on whether the provision is fully explicated in the label that accompanies the box. If it's not, then the person might not really understand what they're signing up for (they probably won't go read the real language), which could be a cause of later legal action. So I'd have to say no, it's a bad idea and the problem should be solved another way.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.