|
Sex appeal with the crowd, former royal has termite problems while travelling. (10)
|
|
|
|
|
Well done Pete -I was thinking of deputising for you today 
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I pulled one from the back catalogue. There's every chance that you've seen this one before.
|
|
|
|
|
All I've got is itinerants
sex appeal = it
with the crowd = in
ex Royal = er
termites = ants
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
That was quick. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it should be itinerant for travelling or itinerants for travellers - just sayin 
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
This is a Winforms app. With clicking a checkbox, user enables a feature in the Settings form. Somewhere else in a form a tab named "Alarms":
Option 1: which was visible but disabled, gets enabled.
Option 2: which was hidden, added to the TabControl again.
In terms of UI design decision, which method you prefer?
Personally, I like option 1.
What, you, the community think is a better option?
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
neither option. You do not store data in a form ever. You store data in an object, e.g. a "settings" object. Both checkboxes link to one field of that object. Do not ask any follow-up here. This is strictly a non-programming forum. Find your language in a forum above.
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I think you did not get the point. My question is not about storing data. It's about UI design.
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: What, you, the community think is a better option?
Don't worry about such silly nonsense.
Be considerate.
What you should be doing is Helping Dave[^]
|
|
|
|
|
That's just trolling now.
|
|
|
|
|
Bear with me on this. 
|
|
|
|
|
There have been many takes on this particular subject in the design community over the years. The consensus seems to be, at the moment, if a user is never going to be able to use that field, you should hide it. If it can be used in certain circumstances, you should disable it.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's all pitch in to help our fellow member @DavesApps. He's making an honest effort to gather reviews for a book he has authored. I think it would be a nice thing to do for a fellow member in need of assistance. I know that if I were in Dave's position, I'd really appreciate the help.
His thread is located, here: Dave's Book Review Thread[^]
|
|
|
|
|
His post, and your replies to it, sound more like a marketing campaign. "Here's my book - first five people to respond get free copies!"
Skimming the free preview at https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Software-Development-Career-Technical-ebook/dp/B0BXHYWMDP[^] , the first page of the Foreword screams that it needs a lot of additional editing. For instance,
"This book is arranged in collections of those topics that you can read all the way, skim through, or look up whenever you need some guidance."
The word 'those' is terrible in this usage. I would recommend something more along the lines of "This book covers many topics that can be skimmed or browsed in-depth when guidance is needed." But I would also recommend eliminating about a thousand of those "this book" phrases. They are highly repetitious, and not a sign of good writing. Based on the fact that such terrible English is used this early in the writing, I suspect reading it will be quite painful for those attuned to such crappy writing. Especially as the following writing in the Foreword is quite crappy. "This book will employ practical ..." should be "This book employs practical ..." etc...
And then the Disclaimer basically says nobody should read 'this book' because it is to be used "at your own risk." "The author and publisher are not making any warranties to the information provided." Pretty big cop-out for someone to put in a book they say will help people. This section doesn't set a 'tone' for a book I would be interested in.
Hope this review is helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to agree with David O'Neil (above/below), overall.
I mean, for starters I'm very particular about what books I'll read these days. I usually won't read technical books unless it's something that I can't google, and that's a surprisingly small amount of things. I would read something like Charles Petzold's "Code" but it's not really a coding manual per se.
Secondly, I wrote my first (simple) application in 1986. I just don't think most books offering to help me are going to be at the level I'd need, unless they were about a specific technology or group of technologies I've previously avoided.
And finally, about this book's commenter in particular - I read it as a self-promotion marketing scheme, and who knows how many other sites they shotgunned this post at? I'd say they've already got all the help they need.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's cheap advertising which is not acceptable here.
|
|
|
|
|
RichardM2024 wrote: No, it's cheap advertising which is not acceptable here.
If Dave were to see your comment, he'd be deeply upset. 
|
|
|
|
|
Good, maybe he will get upset and go away.
>64
Itβs weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Be patient. Hilarity awaits.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we are all well-experiences with these damn cookie screens, and while most play nice (i.e., once you click NO to everything, it gets remembered for the next time you go to a website that uses that screen), there is one cookie screen in particular that doesn't play nice, and makes in a PITA to unclick the 8 or so checkboxes for "Legitimate Interest" cookies (an Orwellian term if there ever were one).
I would be most appreciative if anyone can point me to a browser add-on that automatically defeats this (i.e., by silently unclicking all these damn checkboxes), especially for Firefox. NOTE: I do not want to simply have NO cookies, since I do like them for stuff like logins, etc.
EDIT: I've tried to post a screenshot of this obnoxity, but couldn't figure it out. I even tried by toggling off uBlocker, and still couldn't do it - but I have learned that codeproject.com itself has an obnoxious cookie screen. 
|
|
|
|
|
I just go elsewhere and never go back.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
swampwiz wrote: but I have learned that codeproject.com itself has an obnoxious cookie screen.
That wasn't a very nice thing to say at all.
Please, do something kind with your time to make the world a better place.
Dave needs our help. Please, Help Dave[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Cookie screens can be attributed to the EU and their privacy laws.
I set my browser to clear all cookies on exit, and just ignore the screen and/or click OK. I can create an exception if I want to.
If it is objectionable, I follow OG's advice. Do the same for the "turn off your ad blocker" sites.
>64
Itβs weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 4/6*
π¨π¨β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©β¬β¬π¨π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
