Subject:
|
Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Apr 2000 03:59:32 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@&saynotospam&mattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
2365 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> (bad/neutral,good,excellent), then there isn't the same danger of feelings
"Bad"? Where's this coming from?
One suggestion might be to change the input field from a dropdown to being a
checkbox. (Although this makes having two choices more complicated.) The
current dropdown is actually indended (if I'm understanding Todd correctly)
to be a multi-stage check box -- unchecked, checked, and double-checked.
The "- - -" choice isn't really a choice at all -- it's a passive
"I'm not going out of my way to highlight this" -- not a "bad", or really
even "neutral".
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
| (...) It's the category in which all the bad and neutral posts will live (unrated). (...) If there are going to only be three choices, then I'd prefer buttons - one click instead of click,locate,scroll,...ate,click. Richard (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Creating Lugent Rating Criteria
|
| (...) Does that mean the current 2-choice incarnation is the final one? If the score display in the group-view is only limited to three choices (bad/neutral,good,excellent), then there isn't the same danger of feelings getting hurt - so why not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
