unity-design team mailing list archive

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Philipp Wendler wrote on 04/07/12 17:47:
> ...
> 
> Am 04.07.2012 18:21, schrieb Matthew Paul Thomas:
> 
> ...
>> 
>> For some kinds of boolean setting, a checkbox feels too feeble to
>> control it -- it leaves you unsure whether it is actually turned
>> on or off right now. In the past, a pair of radio buttons, "On"
>> and "Off", was sometimes used to solve this. A switch control
>> does the same job, in a more compact and reassuring way.
> 
> Really? Personally I absolutely feel the opposite. For a check box 
> it is totally clear, whether it is on or off: Check mark is there 
> -> on; check mark is missing -> on. Everybody knows this, because 
> even paper forms follow the same principle (empty box vs. filled 
> box), and radio buttons do so, too.

That's a good analogy. Paper forms are not typically used to turn
things on and off. Switches are.

> On the other side, I've always found switches totally confusing 
> since they have appeared in GUIs, and I'm still unsure about their 
> state everytime I see one. I never know whether the word written
> on it tells me the current state, or the state that would be
> activated if I click it. I do confuse this because a switch looks
> much more like a button than a plain text label, and buttons are
> always labeled with their action, whereas labels are used to show
> state to the user. So why is this principle suddenly inverted for
> switches? If I use the mouse to drag the switch, it becomes worse:
> I have to drag the switch into the direction of the word "Off" in
> order to turn it on! This is the complete opposite of how (labeled)
> switches work in real life.

It's the opposite of how some switches work in real life. But it's the
same as other switches work in real life.
<http://wpabio1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/unique-on-off-switch-for-hormone.html>
<http://www.historichomehardware.com/store/vintage-ivory-bakelite-porcelain-onoff-toggle-switch-nos-p-2420.html>

The difference is, the kind of switch you are describing is hard to
illustrate top-down in 2-D. The kind used in Ubuntu isn't.

> ...
> 
>> Most boolean options either don't need that level of solidity, or
>> can't be labelled briefly enough for a switch, or both. They 
>> should continue using checkboxes/checkmarks, or a pair of radio 
>> buttons/radio items. "Show Time in Menu Bar", "Record file and 
>> application usage", "In the clock, show: [/] Date and month",
>> and so on.
> 
> Then why use switches at all? If a checkbox is a good 
> representation for most boolean options, why not for all?

Because some do need that level of solidity, as I explained in the
first paragraph.

> Why irritate the user with different input methods for the same 
> type of question?

The premise is false. There have always been multiple controls for the
same type of question, and they have not been irritating.

For example, there are at least four controls you can use for choosing
exactly one out of several options: radio buttons, an option menu, a
pull-down menu containing only radio items, or a single-select
listbox. Nobody complains that the redundancy of those controls is
irritating.

Even checkboxes are redundant: choosing one of two states is a special
case of choosing one of n states, so every checkbox could be replaced
by a pair of radio buttons. But apart from Jef Raskin, I don't know of
anyone who ever complained that checkboxes as a whole are irritating.

> For example in the "Brightness and Lock" settings page, there are a
> switch and a checkbox almost directly next to each other. What's 
> the advantage of this for the user?

"Brightness and Lock" is an example of overuse of switches in
particular, and poor design in general. (You can tell that it's an
example of poor design just by its name.)

> I would really like to have switches abolished completely again. 
> Please do not follow Apple's path blindly and use switches just 
> because they are now cool. Although I don't have numbers, I am 
> pretty sure that checkboxes would be at least as good for the 
> users, if not even better (for me they would be!).
> 
> If you think the problem is their small target size, their size 
> could probably be adjusted to be as large as that of a switch (at 
> least in height).
> 
> ...

No, on a PC it's nothing to do with their target size.

Cheers
- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlARGVQACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecrYxACePrhKPd5vYGl9JcqGz/Rvg+zm
FdkAniVoB9uFi9SKa2B2osdNA9ukGPMg
=arVW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----