void pointer wrote:
> Then maybe gmail also has a point to improve upon. :-)
> Designing GUIs on the web is still pretty "new" and there are no
> standards (as far as I know) for graying things out. In windows GUIs
> there is a very common (and in my opinion good) practice to gray out
> options that are invalid.
Well, gmail is web based. TSVN is not. While that doesn't mean we should
do everything differently, I think we should do it differently if it's a
better UI or user experience.
> That's just my point, though. None of the selection links can EVER be
> invalid. The links simply say "Select all of these". And if it happens
> to select NOTHING, that's considered the same as finding one, or two, or
> five-hundred. The link's responsibility is not to make sure that at
> least 1 or more is selected. Its responsibility is to iterate every item
> in the list and select any with a specific state, for example, if the
> state it is searching for is the "Deleted" state, it will check any with
> that state. However, if it does not find any, it has still done its job
> and done it successfully.
GMail doesn't leave the checkmarks if you choose e.g., "Read" and
"Starred". When clicking on "Starred" after "Read", all read items are
unchecked again if they're not also starred.
Maybe we should do that differently? Only uncheck items when "None" is
clicked, and 'add' the checkmarks for all others? I.e., a click on
"Deleted" will check all deleted items, another click on "Added" will
leave the deleted items checked but also check all added items?
If we do it that way, then disabling the links shouldn't be necessary
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-05-27 21:11:43 CEST