| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> OH! Yes, radio buttons. When the number of choices is small, maybe that's
> the way to go.
>
> OTOH, radio buttons in GUI web browsers are smaller "targets" than list boxes.
> Does MSIE know how to automagically group text associated with a radio button?
> Or, like NN, does MSIE make the user click _exactly_ on the radio button
> circle itself rather than sloppy pointing on the text?
>
> The one-click nature of radio buttons probably makes up for that shortcoming,
> though, huh?
IIRC, from my days of dabbling with java, you could make a radiobox, and make
the lable to it a link with no HREF, just with a ONCLICK java script thing,
that will select the appropriate radio button. Will that work?
> > > I'm weary of 33's and 66's because they don't seem "round" enough, so what
> > > I've got now in the test thingie is the 6 values of +100, +75, +50, +25,
> > > -25, -50, -75, and -100. (0 is also a list item, but it means "I don't
> > > care" or "erase my earlier vote" and displays as three dashes).
> >
> > You could let people choose a score from 1 to 10. This is very
> > intuitive, at least for us Michiganders--I can't speak for the rest of
> > the world.
>
> Hmm, there could be a couple of sticky problems with that:
>
> First, the magnitude: The range 1-10 is great for casting quick votes, but
> isn't quite expressive enough for showing final scores. It'd have to go to
> decimal expansions to show the difference between, say, an 8.743 and a 9.311,
> which would both show as "9". And, most importantly, it's too easy to get a
> "10" -- all it would take is 19 votes of 10 and 1 vote of 0. (19/20 => 9.5
> => "10").
>
> Second, the midpoint: Although the midpoint of [1,10] is 5.5, non-geeks
> may be likely to think of 5 as the halfway point. But even a range [0,10]
> where 5 *is* the midpoint (or [0,100] where 50 is the midpoint) doesn't
> communicate negativity... If the scale is [0,100] with 100 being the best
> and 0 being the worst, doesn't a 0 sound like "no value" rather than "negative
> value"? I think there's a lot to be said for being able to mark thigs like
> unnecessary flames, trolls, filth, and other stuff like that to be of
> "negative value" rather than, at worst, only "no value." In other words,
> a score of -5 (or -50) on a scale of [-10,+10] (or [-100,+100]) much more
> accurately communicates negativity than does the equivalent score of 2.5
> (or 25) on a scale of [0,10] (or [0,100]), yes?
The thing is, if you're not giving the users the option to vote any value, but
make them choose from a limited number of options, why not hide the numbers
completely? The options to the users are "bad, neutral, good" (for example)
and the back end sees them as [-100, 0, +100]. Why do the users need to see
the numbers at all?
:)
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Article scoring
|
| (...) I think it could all be done in JavaScript, ya. I wouldn't want to _require_ JavaScript for something like article scoring, but the nice thing about it in this case is that adding it wouldn't hurt; it would degrade gracefully to normal plain (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Article scoring
|
| (...) OH! Yes, radio buttons. When the number of choices is small, maybe that's the way to go. OTOH, radio buttons in GUI web browsers are smaller "targets" than list boxes. Does MSIE know how to automagically group text associated with a radio (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 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
|
|
|
|
