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;
}







16















On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:



Multiple options (checkboxes)
enter image description here



and single options (radio buttons behavior)
enter image description here



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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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


















16















On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:



Multiple options (checkboxes)
enter image description here



and single options (radio buttons behavior)
enter image description here



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?










share|improve this question


















  • 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














16












16








16








On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:



Multiple options (checkboxes)
enter image description here



and single options (radio buttons behavior)
enter image description here



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?










share|improve this question














On the dashboard we are building we got 2 sets of options users can pick:



Multiple options (checkboxes)
enter image description here



and single options (radio buttons behavior)
enter image description here



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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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














  • 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










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















32














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:



enter image description here



And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:



enter image description here



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.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 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



















15














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:



enter image description here



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:



enter image description here



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:



enter image description here



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.






share|improve this answer

































    3














    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.



    enter image description here



    enter image description here



    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.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 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





















    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      32














      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:



      enter image description here



      And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:



      enter image description here



      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.
















      • 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
















      32














      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:



      enter image description here



      And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:



      enter image description here



      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.
















      • 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














      32












      32








      32







      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:



      enter image description here



      And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:



      enter image description here



      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.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      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:



      enter image description here



      And these Word’s alignment controls act like radio buttons:



      enter image description here



      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.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 23 hours ago





















      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered yesterday









      LanaLana

      46114




      46114




      New contributor




      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Lana is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      • 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





        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













      15














      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:



      enter image description here



      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:



      enter image description here



      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:



      enter image description here



      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.






      share|improve this answer






























        15














        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:



        enter image description here



        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:



        enter image description here



        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:



        enter image description here



        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.






        share|improve this answer




























          15












          15








          15







          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:



          enter image description here



          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:



          enter image description here



          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:



          enter image description here



          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.






          share|improve this answer















          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:



          enter image description here



          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:



          enter image description here



          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:



          enter image description here



          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.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 12 hours ago

























          answered 22 hours ago









          Mike MMike M

          12.6k12737




          12.6k12737























              3














              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.



              enter image description here



              enter image description here



              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.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 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


















              3














              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.



              enter image description here



              enter image description here



              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.






              share|improve this answer



















              • 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
















              3












              3








              3







              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.



              enter image description here



              enter image description here



              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.






              share|improve this answer













              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.



              enter image description here



              enter image description here



              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.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              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
















              • 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













              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                0














                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.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.























                  0












                  0








                  0







                  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.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  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.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 6 hours ago









                  Carl DombrowskiCarl Dombrowski

                  101




                  101




                  New contributor




                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Carl Dombrowski is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                      Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Mirandela Referências Menu de...

                      looking for continuous Screen Capture for retroactivly reproducing errors, timeback machineRolling desktop...