Multiple options vs single option UI Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar...
finding a tangent line to a parabola
What is /etc/mtab in Linux?
Is accepting an invalid credit card number a security issue?
I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?
What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
How to find the stem of any word?
What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?
Israeli soda type drink
A faster way to compute the largest prime factor
How does the mezzoloth's teleportation work?
All ASCII characters with a given bit count
Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring
Co-worker works way more than he should
How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?
A strange hotel
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
Unable to completely uninstall Zoom meeting app
Which big number is bigger?
Does Mathematica have an implementation of the Poisson binomial distribution?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Multiple options vs single option UI
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Why is it impossible to deselect HTML “radio” inputs?creating a switch for two optionsDeviating from the check-mark conventionChoice with a Radio button groupDo users understand this hybrid checkbox/radio control?Checkboxes or Radio buttons: Only one or zero choicesDisplay hierarchy of mutually exclusive optionsHow to design a form with lots of possible valuesDo non-technical users understand radio vs checkbox?Checkboxes, Radio Buttons, and Mobile Development
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
add a comment |
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
11
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
12
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
1
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
1
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago
add a comment |
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:
Multiple options (checkboxes)
and single options (radio buttons behavior)
while the look of the components is similar, their uses are different.
In usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product.
But, my designer colleagues argued that the components should look different and users have to understand if its a checkbox or a radio box from the first glance.
My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load.
Any thoughts or inputs?
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
usability gui-design interaction-design checkboxes radio-buttons
asked yesterday
Deniz ErdalDeniz Erdal
1,1322819
1,1322819
11
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
12
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
1
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
1
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago
add a comment |
11
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
12
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
1
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
1
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago
11
11
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
12
12
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
1
1
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
1
1
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Most normal users don't know the difference between a radio button and a check button. At the most, they sometimes get upset when you can't activate multiple radio buttons where it would make sense.
Doing without a visual difference won't confuse a single user - they will see that in some cases selecting one thing removes the other selection, and in other cases not. And they won't care, especially if it makes sense.
If you do want them to have a difference, how about using round corners for the radiobuttons (maybe even between options) and angled corners with the check boxes? The design stays simple, and people who are 'in the know' can see the difference immediately.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125231%2fmultiple-options-vs-single-option-ui%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
add a comment |
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
add a comment |
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
You don't need to make different appearances for these components.
Your case is similar to well-known toggles in a toolbar of text processors like Word.
These font settings toggles act like checkboxes:
And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:
Note, they look identically and it doesn't produce any confusion or difficulties because in our mental model (user's view of how the system should work) we understand that a piece of text can be bold, underlined and cursive simultaneously so we expect that respective toggles should act like checkboxes. And we understand that text can't be right and left aligned simultaneously so it's not a surprise for us that alignment controls act like radio buttons. We know that and we don't need extra reminders about that.
You wrote that in usability tests, users used these components without any difficulties. I think that means that the behaviour of the components matches the user's mental model i.e. users understand and expect that they can choose several age-ranges and only one view (lists or thumbnails).
I took the example of Word's toggles from A. Cooper's "About Face 3. The Essentials of Interaction Design". He wrote about it as an example of a more graphical and more space efficient approach to the checkbox or radio buttons (see Chapter 21: Controls, Check boxes (p. 443) and Radio buttons (p. 446)). And also Cooper didn't say anything like these two types of toggles must look differently.
New contributor
edited 23 hours ago
New contributor
answered yesterday
LanaLana
46114
46114
New contributor
New contributor
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
add a comment |
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
7
7
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
And yet, this principle gets abused all the time, including by Word. All sorts of things on Word's ribbon don't immediately match the user's mental model and they only find out whether it's a checkbox or a radio button by trying it. So it's important to make sure that the user's mental model really covers this. (Coming to it cold, without any context, it's not clear to me at all that the OP's first one is checkboxes and second one is a radio button set.)
– T.J. Crowder
5 hours ago
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
add a comment |
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
It depends. How often do your users see this form / section / settings?
Frequently used, long session applications give users a chance to remember how controls work, especially frequently used ones.
Part of this has to do with Application Posture.
A sovereign application is a program that monopolizes the user's attention for long periods of time.
Google docs and Microsoft Word are great examples of Sovereign Posture Applications: Users spend long periods of time manipulating documents.
The target users are usually intermediates, who encounter these controls repeatedly over long use.
Certain controls that appear the same but behave differently don't pose too much difficulty after repeated prolonged exposure.
Most of us have become accustomed to the toolbar, as pointed out by another post:
Another example is OmniFocus, the task management application.
The inspector panel displays details for repeated and scheduled events. It has a multiselect toggle showing which days of the week to include an event. It has the same effect as checkboxes:
The mental model for events is clearer to begin with, which probably helps in using these controls:
Events have:
- Start dates
- End dates
- Frequencies
- Repetition
For example, it's clear to me that I can go to Karate class Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. I can select multiple days as I need to.
One time forms, rarely accessed 'Settings' pages, and seldom encountered UI can be challenging without clear labels and/or controls.
I'm not clear on your larger context, but clear labeling is crucial for users encountering your form for the first time, or infrequently:
It seems like you're in a good place, as it has been confirmed by user testing. Keep in mind that in some contexts, you'll design for perpetual 'first timers' that are venturing into unfamiliar territory.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 22 hours ago
Mike MMike M
12.6k12737
12.6k12737
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
I think your designer colleagues are right.
If I now look at the options, I have straightforward an idea how I can interact with them and for what they are used.
Using the squares for checkboxes and circles for radio buttons are very old, common and recognizable for most of the users. So, it simplyfies your problem in this case.
answered yesterday
AsqanAsqan
24925
24925
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
add a comment |
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
13
13
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
In my opinion this is less visually appealing and doesn't add much value
– GrumpyCrouton
21 hours ago
1
1
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
@GrumpyCrouton It makes it clear the top buttons are check-boxes (multiple selections), and the bottom ones are radio buttons (single selection).
– cpburnz
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Most normal users don't know the difference between a radio button and a check button. At the most, they sometimes get upset when you can't activate multiple radio buttons where it would make sense.
Doing without a visual difference won't confuse a single user - they will see that in some cases selecting one thing removes the other selection, and in other cases not. And they won't care, especially if it makes sense.
If you do want them to have a difference, how about using round corners for the radiobuttons (maybe even between options) and angled corners with the check boxes? The design stays simple, and people who are 'in the know' can see the difference immediately.
New contributor
add a comment |
Most normal users don't know the difference between a radio button and a check button. At the most, they sometimes get upset when you can't activate multiple radio buttons where it would make sense.
Doing without a visual difference won't confuse a single user - they will see that in some cases selecting one thing removes the other selection, and in other cases not. And they won't care, especially if it makes sense.
If you do want them to have a difference, how about using round corners for the radiobuttons (maybe even between options) and angled corners with the check boxes? The design stays simple, and people who are 'in the know' can see the difference immediately.
New contributor
add a comment |
Most normal users don't know the difference between a radio button and a check button. At the most, they sometimes get upset when you can't activate multiple radio buttons where it would make sense.
Doing without a visual difference won't confuse a single user - they will see that in some cases selecting one thing removes the other selection, and in other cases not. And they won't care, especially if it makes sense.
If you do want them to have a difference, how about using round corners for the radiobuttons (maybe even between options) and angled corners with the check boxes? The design stays simple, and people who are 'in the know' can see the difference immediately.
New contributor
Most normal users don't know the difference between a radio button and a check button. At the most, they sometimes get upset when you can't activate multiple radio buttons where it would make sense.
Doing without a visual difference won't confuse a single user - they will see that in some cases selecting one thing removes the other selection, and in other cases not. And they won't care, especially if it makes sense.
If you do want them to have a difference, how about using round corners for the radiobuttons (maybe even between options) and angled corners with the check boxes? The design stays simple, and people who are 'in the know' can see the difference immediately.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
Carl DombrowskiCarl Dombrowski
101
101
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to User Experience Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125231%2fmultiple-options-vs-single-option-ui%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
11
If you go with this approach, it becomes crucial to make sure it's clear when only one option is allowed vs. multiple. For instance, your example has two selections made for the field "Age", which I wouldn't have expected to be possible. One way to make this clear without changing your elements is adding some help text like "Choose all that apply"
– nvioli
18 hours ago
12
Those gray options look more like they're disabled, rather than deselected.
– 200_success
18 hours ago
1
"My aim was to keep the consistency and lower the cognitive load." - Consistency with common patterns (global consistency) is more important than a single control design for both, even (particularly) if it behaves differently. I would also argue that if you're worried about cognitive load, then this is not going to achieve that reduction. "or once they used and understand the functionalities they didn't have any issues to use them in the other parts of the product." - did this require intervention to achieve? Did you test for hesitancy/etc vs control group version using normative design?
– taswyn
12 hours ago
1
you've tested it and found no issues. This absolutely over rides whatever business think. It's not broken. Don't fix it.
– colmcq
4 hours ago