|
This message has been flagged as potential spam and is awaiting moderation
|
|
|
|
|
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[^]
|
|
|
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
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[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 4/6*
🟨🟨⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟨⬛
🟩⬛⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to snipe your thread, but how did you add an image to the post?
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 4/6
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 4/6*
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟨🟩⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 5/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟨⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟨🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
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
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,213 4/6*
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
So I must implement a UI for creating and editing rules in my new ad blocker application.
I imagine it being like the rules editor in Outlook, if you're familiar with that one.
You're able to manipulate events, actions and conditions in a generic way to build complete rules that determine what Outlook does with your mail.
Sorta like firewall rules.
I've been thinking a lot about design, and I must conclude that this will be fairly challenging for me. It's the most complex UI that I've had to build to this point.
I was wondering if anyone else has composed such an interface, recently, or a hundred years ago?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Beyond my abilities.
A similar thingy is the SQL Agent Job editor, which is very similar to your vaporators needs in most respects, so it could provide some insight into some options.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I suppose one way to solve it is to use a wizard approach. The SQL Agent Job Editor is sorta like a wizard, except it doesn't enforce any particular sequence.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 That's a real piece of master craft that one.
My rules engine isn't nearly that sophisticated. I've got it working, so the next logical step is to create the UI for it.
I'll look for hints in that article. Thanks.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have designed interfaces like this (with arbitrary composable conditions) before.
So has Microsoft.
They are universally horrible. No matter how much work you put into it it is easier for a user to allow them to type and then parse the string in a smart, contextful way such that the user doesn't have to be perfect. <-- which is where the effort should go.
Think how Google does it.
One thing you can do is offer feedback. When they type a query that is malformed, you spit out the well formed interpretation of it so they know what they typed.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
