Subject:
|
Re: A Nit about the "next article"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:57:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
771 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek writes:
> "Never let the user make a mistake. It is better to put code in to prevent
> erroneous actions than to put code in to tell the user what he did wrong."
Of course there are rare instances where it is better to allow something
erroneous and then give an error than it is to disallow it altogether.
For example, say you are the operator of a print server. The graphical
display shows multiple job queues, and you can select specific jobs and
perform operations on them such as Delete, Info, Preview, Edit, Routing,
N-UP, and so forth.
The Delete button should be grayed out, naturally, if no jobs are selected.
If one or more jobs are selected, the Delete button should be clickable.
That's pretty obvious.
Info and Edit might only be clickable if one and only one job is selected.
That's still pretty obvious.
Now, suppose that the N-UP feature takes a group of N selected jobs and binds
them togehter into a larger meta-job. This button is grayed out if no jobs
are selected, and clickable if one or more jobs are selected. Still obvious,
right? But there's a catch -- N-UP requires that all the jobs being bound
together have been RIPped (Raster Image Processed) for the same ink and
media types and for the same DPI resolution on the same class of printing
device.
So...the quandry: Do you gray out the N-UP button when the set of selected
jobs is heterogeneous, leaving the inexperienced operator to wonder why the
in heaven's name the button is grayed out, when in their experience, most of
the time, it has always "just worked"? Or do you let them click it and
explain to them why the jobs can't be combined and how they can try some
alternative approaches?
I would implement the latter. It's much less frustrating to get an error
message explaining why something wasn't possible than to be left wondering
why it wasn't possible or if there was a bug in the software or if you did
something wrong.
(Point well taken though on the issue at hand -- I agree 100% in that case.)
--Todd
======== Posted via the LUGNET discussion group web interface ========
http://www.lugnet.com/news/ Search, Read, Post, or Watch Traffic
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | A Nit about the "next article"
|
| If you are at the last article, perhaps you should suppress showing a URL for the next article. When 368 was last, pressing the 369 URL while viewing 368 gives a page that says: "Article 369 does not exist in group lugnet.admin.general." which is (...) (26 years ago, 15-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
