0

I'm working on a table that has a parent toggle on the top row with each child row below having its own toggle.

If I were to disable a specific row, I will visually see that the row has been disabled.

Now, let's say I were to disable the parent toggle...do you expect all enabled toggles to remain in their current state or to all look and turn disabled?

enter image description here

  • A toggle is just a checkbox without the handy "indeterminate" state. With that in mind, your question is answered elsewhere: ux.stackexchange.com/a/98094/21857 – plainclothes Sep 22 '16 at 22:32
  • Are you using enabled and disabled to describe the on and off states of the toggle? – Andre Dickson Sep 22 '16 at 23:12
  • What is the function of the toggles? If parent is off, are children useless or just defaulted? – Joshua Lowry Sep 23 '16 at 4:56
1

As you have attached the image and it seems you have many child toggle buttons under a parent button. If the user has changed the child toggles, s/he has already invested some effort on that. Disabling the parent should disable it's child only, not the state of the child nodes. If by mistake the user has changed the parent node's state, all the child nodes should remain in their states, only it should appear as disabled. Else it will create frustration and will lead to extra effort.

So, you should not change the state of the child node, just disable them.

  • That's what I was thinking as well. Thanks for your feedback! – Michael Sep 23 '16 at 20:41
0

You can avoid toggles and use checkboxes instead. Users known very good the checkboxes functionality.

for example:

enter image description here

If you can see the parent checkbox change it's state if some of children checkboxes are checked or checked all.

Toggles looks nice, but sometimes is better to have checkboxes(You can customize them).

I hope this will help you.

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