1

We have a table with radio button filters and are struggling with logical wording for the labels, or specifically the label for the default option.

The tables are of people, and each person could belong to multiple teams. We have radios to filter by people in each team, as well as people not in them. The default state is just showing everyone.

We have 4-5 teams, each with similar radio groups as below. Two for example:

BLUE TEAM                         RED TEAM

(*)N/A   ()Only   ()None          (*)N/A   ()Only   ()None

"Only" and "None" should hopefully be obvious, but definitely open to other suggestions on those.

We are currently using "N/A" as the default option which will show people in or not in the team. Is there a better label for that? We've experimented with "All" or "Any", but either of those could be understood as "all of Blue Team", or "any person in Blue Team". That being said, "N/A" doesn't feel great either.

Also, horizontal real estate prevents us having very long descriptive labels like, "Users on and off Blue Team".

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

The meaning of Only, None and N/a are not that clear to me. But I believe you want something like this:

In the BLUE TEAM?                 In the RED TEAM?

( ) Only   ( ) No   (*) Maybe     ( ) Only   ( ) No   (*) Maybe

But it would look nicer if you can claim more vertical space:

Available in No Maybe Only
BLUE TEAM ( ) (*) ( )
RED TEAM ( ) (*) ( )

"Exclusively" is a better word for "Only" in my opinion, but it depends on the target audience which one is better understood.

Improve this answer
1
  • This is great wording and what I was looking for. There is no ambiguity here. Thank you!
    – Nonlocalize
    Jul 4, 2022 at 15:53
2

In my opinion, this approach is a bit convoluted, which affects the labels (N/A is really confusing, as it means "not available ").

Instead, I would suggest that you flip your logic and instead of filtering by two different variables (the teams), filter by only one variable (the players). So you can proceed something like this:

() Blue team     () Red team     () Both     () None

I am not sure if you need the last variable, but I am including it as an example of how easy it would be to add more filter variables.

Edit: based on your new information, the aproach still works. Check below:

enter image description here

I'm using an IPhone 8 with a width of 375px, so you can see that it fits on small areas. Also take a look at the second option: by using checkboxes you can select all applicable items in any combination, the last checkbox is labeled "none" and serves as a reset (so, selecting it will deselect all other options)

Improve this answer
3
  • Thanks for the response. I’m all for making it less convoluted, but I don’t think this solution would work because we actually have four teams. I only added two for illustration, but now realize that was key info to add. Apologies for that, and I will update my question.
    – Nonlocalize
    Jul 4, 2022 at 15:05
  • Appreciate the edit @Devin. In many cases that would do the trick, but in this case it would not because of the three required states. For example, a user sometimes needs to show players ONLY Red team users who are NOT on the Green team, but could still be on the Orange/Red/Blue teams. It's a strange table with strange data!
    – Nonlocalize
    Jul 4, 2022 at 20:33
  • that's why I used teh second version with checkboxes, to enable exactly what you say. Remember checkboxes allow multiple selections, while radio input allows for only one selection
    – Devin
    Jul 4, 2022 at 21:25

Your Answer

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

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